this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
532 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

228 readers
19 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
532
Name & shame. :) (mander.xyz)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
 
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 108 points 4 months ago

Dude. Couldn't even proofread the easy way out they took

[–] shadowtofu@discuss.tchncs.de 85 points 4 months ago (4 children)

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 …

[–] Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca 51 points 4 months ago (3 children)

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'"

[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I am still baffled by the rat dick illustration that got past the review

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 3 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 3 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] Patrizsche@lemmy.ca 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Daaaaamn they didn't even get consent from the patient😱😱😱 that's even worse

[–] Frenchy@aussie.zone 8 points 4 months ago

I mean holy shit you’re right, the lack of patient consent is a much bigger issue than getting lazy writing the discussion.

[–] N4CHEM@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] liss_up 80 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It is astounding to me that this happened. A complete failure of peer review, of the editors, and OF COURSE of the authors. Just absolutely bonkers that this made it to publication. Completely clown shoes.

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 48 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It keeps happening across all fields. I think we are about to witness a complete overhaul of the publishing model.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 27 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I've been saying it to everyone who'll listen ...

the journals should be run by universities as non-profits with close ties to the local research community (ie, editors from local faculty and as much of the staff from the student/PhD/Postdoc body as possible). It's really an obvious idea. In legal research, there's a long tradition of having students run journals (Barrack Obama, if you recall, was editor of the Harvard Law Journal ... that was as a student). I personally did it too ... it's a great experience for a student to see how the sausage is made.

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My field's too small to have separate journals for each university, but we do have one in the Free Journal Network that's run by the community

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

You don’t need one in each University, that wouldn’t scale. There’s be natural specialisations. And journals could even move from University to university as academic personnel change over time.

The main point is that they’re non-profit and run by researchers for researchers.

[–] Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 months ago

Using AI to detect AI uses in research papers : the research paper.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 66 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

To me, this is a major ethical issue. If any actual humans submitted this “paper”, they should be severely disciplined by their ethics board.

[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 50 points 4 months ago

But the publisher who published it should be liable too. Wtf is their job then? Parasiting off of public funded research?

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de 40 points 4 months ago

It's OK, nobody will be able to read it anyway because it's on Elsevier.

[–] PiratePanPan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 4 months ago

Elsevier is such a fucking joke. Science should be free and open, anyways.

[–] Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 4 months ago

what if this was actually just a huge troll, and it wasn't AI.

Now that would be fucking hilarious.

[–] anzo@programming.dev 9 points 4 months ago

All MDs, no PhDs. I wouldn't have read that anyway, but rejected instead of publishing hehe. "Long live the system!" /s

[–] Tyoda@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago

"but for specific cases, it is essential to consult a medical professional"

Foolish robot! I am the medical professional!

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 6 points 4 months ago

My money is on non-existent. I bet one of those dudes is real, at best.