A mistranslated term and a scanning glitch birthed the bizarre phrase “vegetative electron microscopy”
  • 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    4 days ago

    So at least 22 papers from the study were AI generated and not checked afterwards.

    This says more about the authors the AI users who claim authorship than about AI.

      • T156@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        4 days ago

        At least one major paper did, although it used AI images instead of text.

        There was a paper with AI generated diagrams that not only passed peer review somehow, btu was published in a pretty major reputable journal.

        You’d have normally expected them to catch it in peer review and decline to publish, especially as they took it down later.

        • canihasaccount@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          4 days ago

          Nothing in the Frontiers is reputable among scientists. It gets linked a lot on Reddit because it’s open access, but scientists tend to view it as essentially the not-actually-peer-reviewed equivalent of a preprint. In the past, if all reviewers recommend rejection at Frontiers, the editor would be forcibly assigned new reviewers by the publishing staff. This would continue until the manuscript would get accepted. Not sure if that’s still the same (I’ve blocked all Frontiers emails), but it’s not correct to call a Frontiers journal a major reputable journal.

    • toy_boat_toy_boat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      4 days ago

      i am not in any way qualified to say what i’m about to say, so you should probably just stop reading.

      awt awt awt awt a tawr tat awt aw ta awrt gawr tgar a aiuknalrghber,jhmngbae,rkjgaat aawt aaaera r aw aergaaegaebaen,rjhbae,rjgabear aw awr awr aw awert