> A leading scientific journal faces humiliation after it published a completely fake paper, purportedly written by Chinese researchers, which contained AI generated images of a rat with a penis bigger than its own body
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leading-scientific-journal-publishes-fake-ai-generated-paper-about-rat-giant-penis
JUST TRUST THE SCIENCE, BRO
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 8BCDA53E2BDAC4C9E2AC19C0A70D4E02-99287.jpg (97.0 KB, 600x600, IMG_3818.jpeg)
File (): C3FC6E64059ED3F9D504EF0E97807D68-82288.jpg (80.4 KB, 600x549, IMG_3817.jpeg)
File (): DA03FE4919D74F4698E21FB739702B36-151101.jpg (147.6 KB, 1280x720, IMG_3816.jpeg)
not a surprise, most of those scientific journals will publish literally anything
File (): 58782E6DF207DCE31259E0F381C497BB-213993.jpg (209.0 KB, 1080x1700, IMG_2581.jpg)
>>371342
The publishing is one thing, what's more alarming is that this passed the peer review process.
The rat penis pic is funny, but overall not that grave because the peer reviewers don't really look at the pictures.
The text, however, seems to have also been partly AI generated nonsense, and it's really alarming that nobody noticed that, because that's the substance of the report and if peer reviewers can't distinguish between AI nonsense and legitimate writing that's a big deal.
The publishing is one thing, what's more alarming is that this passed the peer review process.
The rat penis pic is funny, but overall not that grave because the peer reviewers don't really look at the pictures.
The text, however, seems to have also been partly AI generated nonsense, and it's really alarming that nobody noticed that, because that's the substance of the report and if peer reviewers can't distinguish between AI nonsense and legitimate writing that's a big deal.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was submitted as an elaborate shitpost to warn the scientific community about the threats of AI generated false-content slipping through the peer review process. It seems to have rattled the community quite a bit, so it was successful on that front.
Would also be a good >>>/cyb/ thread, but idgaf
Would also be a good >>>/cyb/ thread, but idgaf
>>371342
I remember reading something about how people will publish fake BS in scientific journals to support the BS fake products and supplements they are trying to sell
I remember reading something about how people will publish fake BS in scientific journals to support the BS fake products and supplements they are trying to sell
>>371342
>AI generated pictures of rat genitals with word salads is indistinguishable from modern scientific papers.
>AI generated pictures of rat genitals with word salads is indistinguishable from modern scientific papers.
>>371356
>slipping through
its been open for years. peer review is a joke when its basically the reddit upvote system. shit that shows climate change to be false but factually correct? boooo. cure cancer with vegan gains? YAAAAAY
iirc like 10 years ago a university put intentionally false papers "with obvious flaws" out about cancer research and it made it so far they came forward when a pharmaceutical company was going to spearhead the research.
>slipping through
its been open for years. peer review is a joke when its basically the reddit upvote system. shit that shows climate change to be false but factually correct? boooo. cure cancer with vegan gains? YAAAAAY
iirc like 10 years ago a university put intentionally false papers "with obvious flaws" out about cancer research and it made it so far they came forward when a pharmaceutical company was going to spearhead the research.
>>371381
>cure cancer with vegan gains? YAAAAAY
I've only heard that vegan diets in medical context can reduce inflammation and therefore make certain cancers easier to treat/survive. I've never heard of it curing cancer though.
>peer review is a joke when its basically the reddit upvote system.
Even that should've been better than this bullshit here. The only way this could've passed through the system would be if all parties involved neither read it nor looked at it for more than ten seconds. It's astounding.
>cure cancer with vegan gains? YAAAAAY
I've only heard that vegan diets in medical context can reduce inflammation and therefore make certain cancers easier to treat/survive. I've never heard of it curing cancer though.
>peer review is a joke when its basically the reddit upvote system.
Even that should've been better than this bullshit here. The only way this could've passed through the system would be if all parties involved neither read it nor looked at it for more than ten seconds. It's astounding.
>>371384
>"“It used to be really obvious to tell cheat papers at a glance. It is getting harder, and a lot of people in scientific publishing are getting genuinely concerned that we will reach a tipping point where we won’t be able to manually tell whether an article is genuine or a fraud,” Liston further cautioned."
Yes, theyre literally giving the leddit updoot without reading the article, as long as it goes along with their biases.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/107-cancer-papers-retracted-due-to-peer-review-fraud/
>Fake peer reviewers often “know what a review looks like and know enough to make it look plausible,”
Trust the science.
>"“It used to be really obvious to tell cheat papers at a glance. It is getting harder, and a lot of people in scientific publishing are getting genuinely concerned that we will reach a tipping point where we won’t be able to manually tell whether an article is genuine or a fraud,” Liston further cautioned."
Yes, theyre literally giving the leddit updoot without reading the article, as long as it goes along with their biases.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/107-cancer-papers-retracted-due-to-peer-review-fraud/
>Fake peer reviewers often “know what a review looks like and know enough to make it look plausible,”
Trust the science.
>>371386
>as long as it goes along with their biases
What about neutral topics, like rat balls? There's no real politics in this paper.
>as long as it goes along with their biases
What about neutral topics, like rat balls? There's no real politics in this paper.
>>371383
In the sciences their is this idea that you need to publish as much as possible as quickly as possible in order to stay relevant. Those who do not publish do not receive funding or grants so this incentivizes people to publish poor quality papers or outright bullshit to secure funding. On top of this no one is doing replication studies, because no one became famous for being the second person to discover something, so the bullshit results are never caught.
In the sciences their is this idea that you need to publish as much as possible as quickly as possible in order to stay relevant. Those who do not publish do not receive funding or grants so this incentivizes people to publish poor quality papers or outright bullshit to secure funding. On top of this no one is doing replication studies, because no one became famous for being the second person to discover something, so the bullshit results are never caught.
>>371389
>On top of this no one is doing replication studies, because no one became famous for being the second person to discover something, so the bullshit results are never caught.
This is especially prevalent in the field of psychology.
>On top of this no one is doing replication studies, because no one became famous for being the second person to discover something, so the bullshit results are never caught.
This is especially prevalent in the field of psychology.
17 replies | 4 files | 8 UUIDs | Archived