Scientists aghast at bizarre AI rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed article
arstechnica.com
It's unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.

Scientists aghast at bizarre AI rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed article | It’s unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.::It’s unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.

  • Researchgrant@lemmy.worldEnglish
    40·
    9 months ago

    This article was supposedly reviewed. The reviewers are listed on the article’s web page. This publisher is normally reputable, so I’d tend to believe it, even though the image was obviously not properly scrutinized. The article was also retracted after 3 days. I’m not saying there are no problems with science publications, but the things you are saying are not true for this one case. Also this is a secondary source, so there is no original data here, just an article citing a lot of primary sources to summarize the topic. So, the replication issue doesn’t even apply to this paper. Again all valid issues in general, but not so much here…

      • Researchgrant@lemmy.worldEnglish
        13·
        9 months ago

        I did read that article the first time you linked it. Can you go back and read my reply again? I agreed that there is a problem with reproducibility, but that has nothing to do with a paper where no experiments were done.

        • Haagel@lemmings.worldEnglish
          2·
          9 months ago

          So it’s OK to publish “research” that’s been generated by AI so long as there are no experiments involved? I’m sorry. I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

          There has clearly been a massive decline in academic integrity lately, as evidenced by this ridiculous paper and so many others. Why should any of it be excusable?

          • Researchgrant@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            9 months ago

            It’s like I’m taking to a wall. I completely agree with you that this article is egregious. I’m simply pointing out that your talking points were completely invalid when it comes to this, and bringing up reproducibility and non peer reviewed articles retracts from the point that this article followed those rules and was still published. Blame the reviewers, blame the editor, blame the fame hungry scientists, but bringing up totally unrelated problems with science pubs makes you sound like an idiot, which clearly you are. Go ahead and reply again l. I will not bother reading it.