/mlpol/ - My Little Politics


If you want to see the latest posts from all boards in a convenient way please check out /overboard/


Archived thread


IMG_3818.jpeg
IMG_3817.jpeg
IMG_3816.jpeg
Leading Scientific Journal Humiliated After Publishing Fake AI-Generated Paper About Rat With Giant Penis
Anonymous
d601fd6
?
No.371342
371355 371357 371360
> 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
Anonymous
11af599
?
No.371343
371477
not a surprise, most of those scientific journals will publish literally anything
Anonymous
13ea6e5
?
No.371355
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.
Anonymous
13ea6e5
?
No.371356
371381
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
Anonymous
11af599
?
No.371357
371359
>>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
Anonymous
13ea6e5
?
No.371359
>>371357
This didn't appear to be based on a drug though. Just rambling nonsense about rat balls.
Anonymous
c59a7e2
?
No.371360
>>371342
>AI generated pictures of rat genitals with word salads is indistinguishable from modern scientific papers.
Anonymous
cdd6fa9
?
No.371381
371384
>>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.
Anonymous
2fc0feb
?
No.371382
371383
The "publish or perish" mindset has destroyed academia.
Anonymous
13ea6e5
?
No.371383
371389
>>371382
Elaborate
Anonymous
13ea6e5
?
No.371384
371386
>>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.
Anonymous
cdd6fa9
?
No.371386
371387
>>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.
Anonymous
3c232a1
?
No.371387
371390
>>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.
Anonymous
2fc0feb
?
No.371389
371408
>>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.
Anonymous
cdd6fa9
?
No.371390
371407
>>371387
biases are alot more than political.
Anonymous
13ea6e5
?
No.371407
>>371390
What kind of biases concern rat balls?
Anonymous
13ea6e5
?
No.371408
>>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.
Anonymous
5c45800
?
No.371477
>>371343
No, this isn’t the case. I’ve so far had to go through multiple rounds of revisions just to submit a paper I’m writing. Though there are “science spam” journals that take just about anything because they are all about collecting publication fees and not much else.
;