this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
65 points (100.0% liked)

Science

13015 readers
72 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

Rather the opposite: simplifying this down to an issue of just an AI introducing some BS, flattens out the problem that grifter journals don't follow a proper peer review process.

introducing bias or false information in highly specialized fields

Reviewers are not perfect, and may miss things

It's called a "peer review" process for a reason. If there are not enough peers in a highly specialized field to conduct a proper review, then the article should stay on arxiv or some other preprint server until enough peers can be found.

Journals that charge for "reviewing" BS, no matter if AI generated, or by a donkey with a brush tied to its tail, should be named and shamed.

We already have countless examples of this in science where a study with falsified data or poor methodology breeds a whole field of research which struggles to validate the original studies and eventually needs to be retracted.

...and no AI was needed. Goes to show how AI is the red herring here.