- Frenchy ( @Frenchy@aussie.zone ) English97•7 months ago
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.
We all know Elsevier only upholds the highest standards, after all why would they have such a large market share?
- gregorum ( @gregorum@lemm.ee ) English24•7 months ago
because they’re all as bad as most of us and only read the headline :(
- Blackmist ( @Blackmist@feddit.uk ) English17•7 months ago
Editors, typesetters and peer reviewers have also been replaced with AI.
- GenEcon ( @GenEcon@lemm.ee ) English9•7 months ago
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.
- Nomecks ( @Nomecks@lemmy.ca ) English3•7 months ago
They were using AI to proof it
- puchaczyk ( @puchaczyk@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English79•7 months ago
Just to remind everyone, Elsevier had a £2 billion of NET INCOME in 2022 and yet this is a quality you get.
- OpenStars ( @OpenStars@startrek.website ) English24•7 months ago
The goal of any medical institution should be to generate profits.
- capitalists
- Björn Tantau ( @bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de ) English49•7 months ago
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?
- TxzK ( @TxzK@lemmy.zip ) English36•7 months ago
Reading is hard too. If only there was an AI that could do the reading
- lugal ( @lugal@sopuli.xyz ) English16•7 months ago
And we need an electric monk that believes for us
- Ech ( @ech@lemm.ee ) English7•7 months ago
- lugal ( @lugal@sopuli.xyz ) English1•7 months ago
The future is now!
- Kratzkopf ( @Kratzkopf@discuss.tchncs.de ) English2•7 months ago
/c/unexpecteddouglasadams or sonething
- lugal ( @lugal@sopuli.xyz ) English1•7 months ago
Someone got the reference
- FiniteBanjo ( @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today ) English6•7 months ago
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.
- Swedneck ( @Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de ) English3•7 months ago
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.
- PositiveControl ( @PositiveControl@feddit.it ) English45•7 months ago
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
- Pyr_Pressure ( @Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca ) English3•7 months ago
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.
- SpoopyKing ( @SpoopyKing@lemmy.sdf.org ) English19•7 months ago
Why is the publication date June 2024?
- RBG ( @RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de ) English20•7 months ago
This practise is a remnant of the printing times. Papers would get accepted and then printed in a later issue. But once the online publishing started, this kind of was not necessary anymore. Which lead to online publication before print, but somehow still using the print date for the article because a lot of journals still have physical prints.
That said, I don’t know if this journal does that and then if not it is simply stupid. They might do it because they limit “online” issues in size, like the printed ones. Which is idiotic if you don’t actually print anything.
- WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them] ( @WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com ) English11•7 months ago
At least the AI saw personal medical info and Nope!'d out of that?
- Wirlocke ( @Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English8•7 months ago
Come to think of it, I wonder if using ChatGPT violates HIPPA because it sends the patient data to OpenAI?
I smell a lawsuit.
- survivalmachine ( @survivalmachine@beehaw.org ) English2•7 months ago
What patient data?
- Wirlocke ( @Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English1•7 months ago
Typically for the AI to do anything useful you’d copy and paste the medical records into it, which would be patient data.
Technically you could expunge enough data to keep it inline with HIPPA, but if there’s more people careless enough not to proofread their paper, then I doubt those people would prep the data correctly.
- survivalmachine ( @survivalmachine@beehaw.org ) English2•7 months ago
ChatGPT has no burden to respect HIPAA in that scenario. The medical provider inputting your PHI into a cloud-based LLM is violating your HIPAA rights in that case.
- Wirlocke ( @Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English2•6 months ago
Just to clarify I am implying the medical provider would be the one sued. I didn’t think ChatGPT would be in the wrong.
ChatGPT has just done a great job revealing how lazy and poorly thought out people are all over.