160 points

Well that’s… unfortunate. I’d like to know how the fuck that got past editors, typesetters and peer reviewers. I hope this is some universally ignored low impact factor pay to print journal.

permalink
report
reply
122 points

We all know Elsevier only upholds the highest standards, after all why would they have such a large market share?

permalink
report
parent
reply
62 points

That name. Being a hobbyist with niche interests has made me hate them so very much. Scihub forever.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points
*

because they’re all as bad as most of us and only read the headline :(

permalink
report
parent
reply
63 points
*
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Editors, typesetters and peer reviewers have also been replaced with AI.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Since the rest of the paper looks decent (I am no expert in this field), I have a guess: it got to review and it came back with a ‘minor review’ and the comment ‘please summarize XY at the end’.

In low impact journals minor reviews are handeled in a way, that the editor trusts the scientists to address minor changes accordingly. Afterwards it goes to production, where some badly payed people – most of the time from India – put everything in format, send out a proof with a deadline of max 2 days and then it will be published.

I don’t want to defend this practice, but thats how something like this can get through.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

They were using AI to proof it

permalink
report
parent
reply
125 points

Just to remind everyone, Elsevier had a £2 billion of NET INCOME in 2022 and yet this is a quality you get.

permalink
report
reply
35 points

The goal of any medical institution should be to generate profits.

- capitalists

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
80 points
*

It’s the second time in a few hours that I see a post about AI-written articles published in an Elsevier journal. Maybe I’m not super worried about these specific papers (since the journals are also kinda irrelevant), but I’m worried about all the ones we’re not seeing. And I fear that the situation is only going to get worse while AI improves, especially regarding images. The peer review system is not ready to address all of this

permalink
report
reply
4 points

There are so many different journals out there it’s hard to keep track of which ones are actually reputable anymore.

Almost need some overarching scientific body that can review and provide ratings for different journals to be able to even cite from the information within or something.

Like science and nature would be S-tier, whereas this journal should be F-tier apparently and people shouldn’t even be allowed to cite articles found within it for their own papers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
77 points

What’s so puzzling about this stuff is that I get why they’re using AI to write the text because writing is hard. But why don’t they at least read it once before submitting?

permalink
report
reply
62 points

Reading is hard too. If only there was an AI that could do the reading

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

And we need an electric monk that believes for us

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

/c/unexpecteddouglasadams or sonething

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I don’t even get the writing aspect. An LLM is 100% accurate when it has as many errors as an average human, so your product will always be worse with AI. Always. It’s never good to use it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

CTRL+f, “AI”, enter

but no, let’s not take literally 5 seconds to check whether the AI got confused and included an admission of your shame in the paper.

permalink
report
parent
reply
77 points

Dang that got published… I had to jump through fucking HOOPS to get my advisors to allow me to publish shit. This is ridiculous

permalink
report
reply
29 points

Not sure you’d want to publish in Radiology Case Reports. It has an impact factor of 0.8, and I am not saying using impact factor as a general quality metric is good, but anything below 1 is probably not worth your time unless it is a very very new journal that just doesn’t have enough history.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

So no peer review? Or did the peer just use a chat not too?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Science Memes

!science_memes@mander.xyz

Create post

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.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

Community stats

  • 8.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.7K

    Posts

  • 94K

    Comments