Daaaaamn they didn’t even get consent from the patient😱😱😱 that’s even worse
Comment on Name & same. :)
shadowtofu@discuss.tchncs.de 5 months ago
This article has been removed at the request of the Editors-in-Chief and the authors because informed patient consent was not obtained by the authors in accordance with journal policy prior to publication. The authors sincerely apologize for this oversight.
In addition, the authors have used a generative AI source in the writing process of the paper without disclosure, which, although not being the reason for the article removal, is a breach of journal policy. The journal regrets that this issue was not detected during the manuscript screening and evaluation process and apologies are offered to readers of the journal.
The journal regrets – Sure, the journal. Nobody assuming responsibility …
Patrizsche@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
Frenchy@aussie.zone 5 months ago
I mean holy shit you’re right, the lack of patient consent is a much bigger issue than getting lazy writing the discussion.
N4CHEM@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
It’s removed from Elsevier’s site, but still available on PubMed Central: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11026926/#
The worse part is, if I recall correctly, articles are stored in PubMed Central if they received public funding (to ensure public access), which means that this rubbish was paid with public funds.
Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
What, nobody read it before it was published? Whenever I’ve tried to publish anything it gets picked over with a fine toothed comb. But somehow they missed an entire paragraph of the AI equivalent of that joke from parks and rec: “I googled your symptoms and it looks like you have ‘network connectivity issues’”
bitfucker@programming.dev 5 months ago
I am still baffled by the rat dick illustration that got past the review
maculata@aussie.zone 5 months ago
RAT DICK,
RAT DICK,
WHATCHA GONNA DO…
AlolanYoda@mander.xyz 5 months ago
dck
magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 5 months ago
Nobody would read it even after it was published. No scientist have time to read other’s papers. They’re too busy writing their own papers. This mistake probably made it more read than 99% of all other scientific papers.
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 5 months ago
I think that part of the issue is quantity and volume. You submit a few papers a year, an AI can in theory submit a few per minute. Even if you filter 98% of them, mistakes will happen.
That said, this particular error in the meme is egregious.