Breaking pi day to name and shame

Comments

• Frenchy@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

  source

  • fossilesque@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source

    • NegativeInf@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source
  • gregorum@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source

    • fossilesque@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      We UpLoAdEd ThE wRoNg VeRsIoN

      pubpeer.com/…/F93A8D69350BC6B12AB48B132161A7

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Blackmist@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source
  • GenEcon@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source
  • Nomecks@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    They were using AI to proof it

    source
• puchaczyk@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

  source

  • OpenStars@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    - capitalists

    source
  • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Academic publishing

    source
• PositiveControl@feddit.it ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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, 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

  source

  • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source
• bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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?

  source

  • TxzK@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source

    • lugal@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      And we need an electric monk that believes for us

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source
  • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source
• PatFussy@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

  source

  • RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source
  • 52fighters@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source
• HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  4 MDs and not a single brain

  source

  • Risk@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I work in healthcare. Doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.

    source
• SpoopyKing@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Why is the publication date June 2024?

  source

  • RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Thus 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.

    source
• WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  At least the AI saw personal medical info and Nope!'d out of that?

  source

  • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Come to think of it, I wonder if using ChatGPT violates HIPPA because it send the patient data to OpenAI?

    I smell a lawsuit.

    source

    • hissingmeerkat@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I don’t think HIPPA applies in Jerusalem.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • survivalmachine@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      What patient data?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Lucien@hexbear.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Being a lit review, it’s not a referreed publication, so no one to call them out on their bullshit. Funny that the author didn’t even bother reading their shit sandwich of a “review”.

  source

  • hissingmeerkat@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s not a literature review. It’s a case report on a specific patient. It’s impossible to imagine writing a discussion of your own patient in this way, or to accept an approximately 5 page article without reading it.

    The journal Radiology Case Reports is refereed by an editorial board led by University of Washington professors, associate professors, and doctors of medicine.

    Radiology Case Reports is an open-access journal publishing exclusively case reports that feature diagnostic imaging. Categories in which case reports can be placed include the musculoskeletal system, spine, central nervous system, head and neck, cardiovascular, chest, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, multisystem, pediatric, emergency, women’s imaging, oncologic, normal variants, medical devices, foreign bodies, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine, molecular imaging, ultrasonography, imaging artifacts, forensic, anthropological, and medical-legal. Articles must be well-documented and include a review of the appropriate literature.

    $550 - Article publishing charge for open access

    10 days - Time to first decision

    18 days - Review time

    19 days - Submission to acceptance

    80% - Acceptance rate

    source
• Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Innovation under capitalism:

  source
• MataVatnik@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  OOOOF

  source