THIS Got Through Peer Review?! 

you can buy peer review from 10000 to 50000 $. that is why so many fake or crap drugs get thru...remember vioxx

Have you tried chat GBT to find out what all those things are

The algorithm has blessed me with this vid, & I thot it was an April fools joke ! XD

Ground News is biased.

I didn't even realize the ad was an ad; well done!

the real OG

The peers were other ai

VICE wrote about it and talked to one of the two reviewers (named in the article), who said it was not his responsibility to vet the obviously incorrect images. It doesn't look like they were able to get in touch with the other reviewer, though.

We only know of 1 reviewer based in the US, while the 2nd based in India is unknown (as stated in the Vice article).

​@@desmond-hawkinsthat's so stupid isn't it

I too weep for the loss of integrity in science. Stuff like this rat thing is super obvious but how much is out there that never is discovered? What is going on in the scientific community and for how long? Faking data etc is totally undermining what science is supposed to be and do. A real shame.

How do you know it hasn't always been this bad?

Look up the holy texts of anti-vaxxers, if you want a bit of a reality check. That garbage made it through peer review, got published and did untold amounts of damage to medical science, just because some greedy little shit wanted in on the vaccines market without the actual skills to compete in it. And that shit was going on 50 years ago.

@@danielr2194it may have been bad. But before about 30 years ago, it was not treated as a "get rich quick" scheme by universities. My grandfather and uncle were accounting professors. They remember the days when you could become a professor to teach, rather than purely as a publication machine to generate that federal journal cash.

These are your peers. According to the magazine.

‘s cool … as long as they listed ChatGPT as a co-author

@@seanvogel8067 As main Author

Did you try reporting it? Or cross reference findings?

Scientist identifes himself as AI language model, you bigot. Live and let live!

its

It's always like that.With _your_ stuff it's as if they're very rigid and "by the book" but with someone else's "work" it's as if they're given a lot of leeway.

As long as the "publish or perish" culture continues and the academic world revolves around papers, this will keep happening. Academia should find something else to evaluate researcher performance. Like what they claim can be reprodueced or not, etc.

Has anyone actually heard of "frontiers" before? I didn't.

@@argfasdfgadfgasdfgsdfgsdfg6351I have- and not positively, they’ve been caught up in a number of scandals over the years

​@@argfasdfgadfgasdfgsdfgsdfg6351it's a very well known journal

They have the same mistaken assumption about humans.

@@roobs4245 Tell me about it. Whenever people point to evidence of ChatGPT not being an AGI because it has no real understanding of what it is saying, I just think, "Well, have you tried holding humans to that standard?"

@@omp199 you're a clear example of it!

Llms has certain reason. They are not random generated shit like image generation machine learnings. They actually have no resembles of intelligence unlike llms who actually understand most of the thing it says but has limited brain capabilities. This is why it is a one step forward to agi but it is not agi. Cha gpt has no image generation capabilities it just know how to use image generators like it can use a lot of other tools just like humans. So I can do what chat gpt can do with dall e 3 myself.

​@@omp199the better argument would be "which one has the capability and or potential to understand its requested subject matter"

So the peer reviewer didn’t approve the paper, and the ‘reliable source’ (Frontiers) accepted the paper anyway? Their reputation is ruined. Why even accept peer reviews if you’re going to cut them out anyways?

@@Krilium This is why publishing in a scientific magazine today doesn't really mean anything anymore.

"I think we all know how this happened." No, I don't know. What are you insinuating?

@@Joe_Yacketori They intentionally ignored the reviewers to push another publication out for profit. Frontiers charges anywhere from $700 - $9000k + in publishing fees (depending on which journal; they have hundreds). They'd rather publish a subpar article and take the cash than to be stricter and aim for higher prestige. Now, I wouldn't call Frontiers a "predatory" publisher, but they're known to be less reliable than others for this exact reason.

Yes, we all know how it happened. Money money money 🎶

I think someone missed the notorious Elsevier peer reviewed article....

@@arodvaz1528 Elsevier is not a journal, they are a publisher.

@@lurifaks92 Who said Elsevier is a journal? Have you read the article I mentioned? Btw if services like Elsevier charge libraries so much for their subscriptions, their content better be good, don't you think?

@@arodvaz1528 You are attributing things on a journal level to the publisher level, so you are saying Elsevier is a journal, alternately you are just not familiar with the process. Link the article for me please.

@@lurifaks92 I'm referring to the service that links to the article, who's also responsible for its doi, which is not an incidental thing. The journal is not the most prominent name on the article, unfortunately.

Can you name one that can be taken seriously?

@@arnoldvezbon6131 Cell, Nature, Reviews of Modern Physics, New Englang Journal of Medicine, The Lancet... There are plenty. Look for the top influential journals in each field. Look for ones older than 50 years yet still in print. Go to a top university, look for their top researchers/nobel prize winners, look at the citations they show off on their website: those are great journals.

May I ask what you published? I'd like to read it.

​​@@arnoldvezbon6131 Nature and Cell are pretty good. And he is right, Frontiers is kind of a joke

Came here to say that. Frontiers is, at least in my field, considered borderline predatory. Comparable to MDPI or Hindawi.

That's what happens when the only ones getting grants are the ones who can spit out the most output.

Rewarded and not a serious punishment compared to when caught. You can't give me 100 every time I lie and take 10 when I'm caught and expect me not to lie. Even if it were equal I could obviously spend and come out ahead or live better until. Have to have real costs.

Agreed, novelty takes a priority, accuracy is secondary, the last paper I wrote was a direct debunk of another engineering paper. I was dismayed to find the journal who published the original nonsense refused to publish my response on the grounds that it lacked novelty!!

Capital reigns

It's just like products. Companies making bad products that break easily sell more products adn get more money.

He got an attaboy and a medal.

I once tried to make chatgpt recommend academic literature about various aspects of a certain topic, and once I started going through the list, I realised that nearly all titles were made up even though chatgpt gave rather specific information about what those made up texts contain.

obviously he got published in frontiers

I like to think there’s some cgbt cinematic universe where all of these made up publications exist and it’s pulling them from this imaginary wealth of scientific knowledge unknown to us XD

Hired as new president of Harvard?

And... that's the whole problem with the academic system. Dedicated peer reviewers don't get invited for more reviews, and honest researchers struggle to get research grants.

Thanks for your integrity and effort.

thanks for being one of the good guys.

Thank you for your integrity and principles

It’s hard to over estimate the value of a good cautionary tale, no? Having been fooled early in my career by ghostwritten papers and marketing strategies and seeing some terrible outcomes, I became extremely hard-nosed. There is good reason to cultivate skepticism.

Indeed. And for the more senior scholars who fudge their work-how can they justify the risk? The risk to credibility and career alone should make them shudder-to say nothing of the ethics of the act!

They're not "making a joke", ffs. The woman who added her dog wasn't either, she actually tried to pass the damn thing off as a researcher to lend herself credibility. And it kinda worked, because after the journal editor who denied her paper passed on, the others were all "dawwww, pupper" and brought her right back in. 🙄

i completly disagree that ai should be banned. its a very helpful tool for correcting grammatical and linguistical errors especially if english isn't your native languege. if you just copy paste whatever it says then its your fault for not reading the ai's output correctly.

I think there certainly is a place for AI language models in writing academic work. Writing is chiefly about communication: having an idea and embedding that idea into language in such a way that the recipient of the language will be able to unpack your idea, and not some other idea from the given language. However, language is a chaotic system with such annoying things as homonyms and ambiguous grammatical structures. (consider a sentence like: He sold him vegetables that were grown in his own garden. Clearly we have two men transacting... but were the vegetables grown in the buyer's or the seller's garden? Did you even notice this ambiguity before I pointed it out? Perhaps the context for this sentence would clarify, but it's also perfectly possible that it simply doesn't. How easily could a sentence containing such an ambiguity sneak into your paper and mislead an expected half of your readers?) But it's even worse, some prose is exceedingly boring and impenetrable, you might not even be able to sustain the attention to unpack any ideas from it at all, nevermind ones the author didn't intend to embed in it. Thus, the most successful researchers will invariably end up being those with sufficient communication skills to produce prose that is easy to read AND conveys the intended ideas, and this means that to be a good researcher requires not specialising fully in your field, but partially in your field and partially in communication. Thus it seems that the more successful authors are going to end up not being the most visionary researchers, but the one's who are visionary enough AND have greater skill in communication. BUT, what if a tool existed that could enhance the researcher's prose... a system that could catch and address those sneaky ambiguities, improve diction for greater clarity, and make the prose more readable. Suddenly, the researcher can devote more time and effort into the actual research, instead of workshopping their prose. This would also result in a quality of life improvement for the review process, now the reviewer is less likely to run into dense impenetrable prose, can more easily unpack the author's ideas, which means that it would be easier to catch if the author made some unjustified leap in logic or overlooked some important factor, or if the author is absolutely right in a massively revolutionary way, the reviewer will now not need to agonise for minutes on sentences, hours on pages, just to untangle the bad prose and discover this revolutionary revelation, or more likely, give up on untangling and judge the epiphany put to paper to be absolute nonsense. What kind of tool would be able to fulfil this role? Obviously, an AI language model. Either that or we need to formalise a standard of pairing up communication specialists with geniuses into researcher/writer teams.

It costs money?! I thought they make money by charging for access

@@julius4858 Money from both ends. At least the high end journals

​@@julius4858thats why theyre genius, they charge both ways.

​@@julius4858unfortunately not only authors need to pay for publishing their articles, they also don't get any money that readers pay to get the access

@@julius4858 it costs money to publish. You pay to access, and if it's open-access, the authors had to pay APC. I think a lot of publishers still charge for images and graphs too. No authors, reviewers or universities receive any money in this process, publisher pockets everything

Scientism is dying a slow slow death.

Not really. If the peer reviewer rejects the journal, it won't push through.

@@itsgonnabeanaurfrommeYou mean peer selector. There is no peer review only selection.

@@arnoldvezbon6131 There is peer review in some parts of academia, it's just not consistent.

Funnily enough, most associate editors are also volunteers...

I hope you got better.

SAME

I like how it just says "rat" on the thumbnail 😂

It's a rat

Drawn together?

It's exactly what I expected. The algorithm is working perfectly.

That's just dirty. But I bet whoever sells olubolu extract paid them handsomely for those results.

It's really easy to doctor results to send clients a certain direction when your target audience doesn't understand the content of your study (because realistically speaking, product based studies are unlikely to be read past or before the conclusion segment)

you cannot feed placebo to rats. they don't understand human speech etc you don't even know what placebo is...

Can be. Depends on university and whether they were too trusting or just lazy

Turns out the peer reviewers raised concerns, the editor posted the questions to the authors, the authors ignored half the questions, and the editor decided to publish anyways.

Seems to me they should have done more than just "raise concerns" -- more like say loudly and clearly "This is complete and utter rubbish, throw it straight in the bin."

@@gcewing the peer reviewer can write comments and questions for the author, and signal whether they suggest the paper for publication, want a revision, or reject. But the decision is always the discretion of the editor. The peer reviewer can’t force the editor’s hand to throw anything into the bin.

@@gcewing “raise concerns” is a very broad statement. They aren’t going to actually describe exactly what the reviewers said.

Yeah. People becoming more and more sheepish and therefore easier to lead down this silly hype bubble only exacerbates the issue.

RU-vid history only remembers about ~2 months of watch history for me (I watch youtube a lot, so my guess it's a set number and not time based, 2 months likely corresponds to how many videos I watch in month reaching that limit), and so keeps recommending me the same stuff I watched 2 months + ago... like youtube, so much content and can't find me much good new content?!

during undergrad I saw my lab partner simply record fake data with no hesitation whatsoever.

Maybe they did _no_ research. ChatGPT did, and cared to its best

Who employs the scientists? Universities. The university should have their funding on the line when their scientist publishes junk. The university should review the papers for obvious issues like this before it gets submitted. That's where the money comes from and that's why all these "scientists" keep pushing out junk papers so they should be held accountable.

It is relatively transparent, you can look up who reviewed this paper on the webpage. The problem is the publishing process in journals that have a high incentive to apply predatory practices. But in this case, the authors mentioned in the paper that the figures were AI-generated (which is allowed according to Frontiers' author guidelines), and one reviewer complained about them.

Then you have the same issue that peer review was designed to address, who is paying and who benifits from this paper saying what it says. Once money becomes involved the two usually end up being the same party. It's easy to hear something online from someone you think has authority and just roll with what they say but the issue really isnt the peer reviewers, they actually tend to do a good job but the editor (the journal) has the final say on what gets published

And the summaries are worse than the average Reddit comment news bot 😢

So true, so true. If as a creator, you cannot articulate your own art... It means you never really thought through about the themes, process or any subject in you life. Just an empty head.

Can chatgpt even scan images?

@@bbrainstormer2036 yeah. it can analyze images. it's a relatively new features

@@bbrainstormer2036 Nah, you write some summary, then put them onto ChatGPT so you have a full article. Problem there being, is that the description of an artwork of any sort, needs greater attention to nuances. ChatGPT has a tendency to muddle things in a vaguely optimistic positivity, even when the summary prompt suggests otherwise. That is a problem that I am referring to.

It’s a perilous convergence to be sure. The Information Age has withered into the Manipulation Age where there seems to a con under everything you see. I am worried for our children.

Perhaps you mean _”has become_ a huge epidemic” confronting scientists today? Consider, the trouble with misinformation - or simply bad information - may be that even a little calls everything into question. It’s pernicious. Science in most fields today builds upon what has been published. Entire areas of study are theories stacked upon theories, the sturdiness of the entire structure depending on each building block being solid. Some papers are more foundational than others, but all still contribute. It seems germane that one of the first steps for a new scientist in even formulating a research question is to run an online search to see what is in the literature already. Has anyone asked the question already? Is the theory you might pursue already disproven or proven? Those initial searches will only review titles and abstracts, not deep dive to parse the data in papers for discrepancies. How often have fraudulent papers distorted our efforts, steering the entire thrust of a discipline in one direction or another, do you suppose? I think most would agree it’s impossible to know once more than a few cases of fraud in frequently cited articles have been exposed. Some areas will be more vulnerable to distortions resulting from fraud, mistakes, or poor work. One of the most fragile I can think of is climate science. Papers are produced that use theoretical models which take as their inputs variables produced by other models, that in turn take as their inputs data sets that have been adjusted by applying other models. Given that these global models are attempting to predict outcomes from dynamic interactions within chaotic systems, [here I mean chaotic as in a profound dependence upon initial conditions] what is the likelihood for a fatal flaw to arise. This is in what may be one of the most important areas of scientific endeavor our species has undertaken. The stakes are extremely high. I would submit that even when not as dramatically apparent, the stakes are extremely high and the consequences very difficult to predict. I think we already have a huge issue at hand.

That could actually be a great analogy but from someone in the industry, its more that the journals are TSA and peer reviewers are the x-ray machines. This problem starts making a lot more sense when you look at it that way

Where did you hear about that?

​@@KnakuanaRkaWas also wondering that, so I looked it up: Christoph Bartneck submitted a nonsense paper with a fake identity at International Conference on Atomic and Nuclear Physics, which was accepted for oral presentation after 3 hours. He made a blog post about it and there are some articles about it. There probably was no peer review involved and it may not have been published (not sure, couldn't find info about that quickly)

@@KnakuanaRkaA professor called Christoph Bartneck received an email asking him to submit a paper to a conference on nuclear physics. Since it was not his area of expertise he used iphone autocomplete, added some photos, submitted under a fake name and within two hours had an email saying the paper was expected please pay us US$1k to speak at the conference. The conference was The International Conference on Atomic and Nuclear Physics.

There was also the "Get me off Your F**king Mailing List” paper, accepted by the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology which is a really fun read.

Did it literally straight-up say "p-word"??

Don't just leave it at that explain further please

This is frontiers...

The reviewers may be old?

It also means the papers that get favourably reviewed are more likely to align with the views of the person paying

it's not new, but its getting worse... generative AI will only make it way more accessible and convincing

Historian here: AI would have no idea what I was talking about and spit out critiques that often have nothing to do with what I'm writing about. Just like the average peer reviewer

Thats what he missed and I think it's really the most important point

the reviewers said there were major issues with the paper the journal said jk dont care who asked

Yeah, I hate how he worded the phrase at 3:45

God save us from sloganism.

You can understand the potential pitfalls in a methodology without using conspiracy theorist dogwhistles. Science has consistently been the BEST way to improve life for the MOST amount of people. (Whether though medicine, increasing crop yields, travel & telecommunications, etc) You existing in a modern western world is “trusting the science” in thousands of ways every day. Oh, and also, your home country would probably only have 10% of its current gdp (and worse quality of life) if it didn’t have access to science’s inventions. 😂

They publish almost 200 different scientific journals, hence a big player

The science channels/magazine writers that you watch/read are getting their stuff from Frontiers and other big journals

Youre not in the industry then are you

Frontiers is not a trustworthy peer review publisher.