You must log in or register to comment.
Maybe, if reviewers were paid for their job they could actually focus on reading the paper and those things wouldn’t slide. But then Elsevier shareholders could only buy one yacht a year instead of two and that would be a nightmare…
Elsevier pays its reviewers very well! In fact, in exchange for my last review, I received a free month of ScienceDirect and Scopus…
… Which my institution already pays for. Honestly it’s almost more insulting than getting nothing.
I try to provide thorough reviews for about twice as many articles as I publish in an effort to sort of repay the scientific community for taking the time to review my own articles, but in academia reviewing is rewarded far less than publishing. Paid reviews sound good but I’d be concerned that some would abuse this system for easy cash and review quality would decrease (not that it helped in this case). If full open access publishing is not available across the board (it should be), I would love it if I could earn open access credits for my publications in exchange for providing reviews.
I’ve always wondered if some sort of decentralized, community-led system would be better than the current peer review process.
That is, someone can submit their paper and it’s publicly available for all to read, then people with expertise in fields relevant to that paper could review and rate its quality.
Now that I think about it it’s conceptually similar to Twitter’s community notes, where anyone with enough reputation can write a note and if others rate it as helpful it’s shown to everyone. Though unlike Twitter there would obviously need to be some kind of vetting process so that it’s not just random people submitting and rating papers.
Perhaps a Lemmy server, in which only moderator-approved users can vote on posts?
I feel like I’ve seen this model before, I know I’ve heard it. There’s better ways to do it than your suggestion, but it’s there in spirit. Science is a conversation, it would be a really cool idea to make room for things like this. In the meantime, check out Pubpeer, it’s got extensions for browsers. Super useful and you have to attach your ORCID to be verified. Everyone can read it though.
Perhaps paid reviews would increase quality because unpaid reviews are more susceptible to corruption
Open access credits is a fantastic idea. Unfortunately it goes against the business model of these parasites. Ultimately, these businesses provide little to no actual value except siphoning taxpayer money. I really prefer eLifes current model but it would be great if it was cheaper. arXiv, Biorxiv provides a better service than most journals IMO
Also I agree with the reviewing seriously and twice as often as publishing. Many people leave academia so reviewing more can cover them.
Fuck that, they should pay special bounty hunters to expose LLM garbage, I’d take that job instantly
Ah… welp, tis the AI era, I guess…
It’s OK, nobody will be able to read it anyway because it’s on Elsevier.
“but for specific cases, it is essential to consult a medical professional”
Foolish robot! I am the medical professional!
This article has been removed at the request of the Editors-in-Chief and the authors because informed patient consent was not obtained by the authors in accordance with journal policy prior to publication. The authors sincerely apologize for this oversight.
In addition, the authors have used a generative AI source in the writing process of the paper without disclosure, which, although not being the reason for the article removal, is a breach of journal policy. The journal regrets that this issue was not detected during the manuscript screening and evaluation process and apologies are offered to readers of the journal.
The journal regrets – Sure, the journal. Nobody assuming responsibility …
What, nobody read it before it was published? Whenever I’ve tried to publish anything it gets picked over with a fine toothed comb. But somehow they missed an entire paragraph of the AI equivalent of that joke from parks and rec: “I googled your symptoms and it looks like you have ‘network connectivity issues’”
Nobody would read it even after it was published. No scientist have time to read other’s papers. They’re too busy writing their own papers. This mistake probably made it more read than 99% of all other scientific papers.
I think that part of the issue is quantity and volume. You submit a few papers a year, an AI can in theory submit a few per minute. Even if you filter 98% of them, mistakes will happen.
That said, this particular error in the meme is egregious.
I am still baffled by the rat dick illustration that got past the review
dck
RAT DICK,
RAT DICK,
WHATCHA GONNA DO,
WHATCHAGONNADO WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU.
Well yeah. What would someone admitting responsibility do? I really want you to think about it, I’m not just trying to have an argument, I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately.
We want someone specific to blame, that person gets fired, we move along. What did we accomplish besides getting someone who likely didn’t act unilaterally fired?
We are in the era where we realize there is no enforcement mechanism for anything but property theft, and we’ve shrunk that to tangible property theft (vs intellectual)now that AI is around.
I’m afraid the journal’s regrets are all you can expect and in the future you won’t even get that.
It’s removed from Elsevier’s site, but still available on PubMed Central: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11026926/#
The worse part is, if I recall correctly, articles are stored in PubMed Central if they received public funding (to ensure public access), which means that this rubbish was paid with public funds.
Daaaaamn they didn’t even get consent from the patient😱😱😱 that’s even worse
I mean holy shit you’re right, the lack of patient consent is a much bigger issue than getting lazy writing the discussion.
They mistakenly sent the “final final paper.docx” file instead of the “final final final paper v3.docx”. It could’ve happen to any of us.
Raneem Bader, Ashraf Imam, Mohammad Alnees, Neta Adler, Joanthan ilia, Diaa Zugayar, Arbell Dan, Abed Khalaileh. You are all accused of using chatgpt or whatever else to write your paper. How do you plead?
My money is on non-existent. I bet one of those dudes is real, at best.
How do you plead?
“I apologize, but I do not feel comfortable performing any pleas or participating in negative experiences. As an AI language model, I aim to help with document production. Perhaps you would like me to generate another article?”
How do you feel about using chatgpt as a translation tool?
Depends on what kind of translation we’re talking here. Translating some chatter? Translating a web page (most of these suck)? Translating a book for it to be published? Translating a book so you can read it yourself? Translating a scientific paper so you can publish it, without proofreading the translation?
Is it the personal vs. private vs. public use that is bothersome or is it just the fact that these fuckers didn’t proofread I guess is what I’m trying to figure out
They didn’t proofread, plus there’s a real chance that some other parts of the paper might be AI nonsense. If something so glaringly problematic got past, what smaller mistakes are also there? They effectively poisoned their own paper
I started a business with a friend to automatically identify things like this, fraud like what happened with Alzheimer’s research, and mistakes like missing citations. If anyone is interested, has contacts or expertise in relevant domains or just wants to talk about it, hit me up.
Google Retraction Watch. Academia has good people already doing this.
https://www.crossref.org/blog/news-crossref-and-retraction-watch/
Legend right here.
What’s the business model? (How does that generate revenue?)
We’re providing review assistance and some types of automated replication to publishers for a yearly rate, and planning to sell subscriptions to individual researchers for $50 /mo.
what if this was actually just a huge troll, and it wasn’t AI.
Now that would be fucking hilarious.
I won’t even post to Hexbear without rereading my post and editing spelling/grammar errors, how do people submit research papers that will effect their professional reputation without doing it?
Elsevier is such a fucking joke. Science should be free and open, anyways.
How did this make it past review? I guess case reports might not have a peer review process
Elsevier
Fun fact! In the Netherlands, Elsevier publishes a weekly magazine about politics, which is basically the written version of Fox News for that country. Very nice that those people control like 50% of all academic publishing.
Military Industrial Publishing Complex. It isn’t tinfoil.
Most read Elsevier paper.
All MDs, no PhDs. I wouldn’t have read that anyway, but rejected instead of publishing hehe. “Long live the system!” /s
