Just to remind everyone, Elsevier had a £2 billion of NET INCOME in 2022 and yet this is a quality you get.
Breaking pi day to name and shame
Submitted 7 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/165c0c74-99ae-4312-ad28-a5e97424840e.jpeg
Comments
puchaczyk@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 months ago
OpenStars@startrek.website 7 months ago
The goal of any medical institution should be to generate profits.
- capitalists
RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 7 months ago
PositiveControl@feddit.it 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, 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@lemmy.ca 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.
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 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@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Reading is hard too. If only there was an AI that could do the reading
lugal@sopuli.xyz 7 months ago
And we need an electric monk that believes for us
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 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@discuss.tchncs.de 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.
PatFussy@lemm.ee 7 months 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
RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months 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.
52fighters@sopuli.xyz 7 months ago
So no peer review? Or did the peer just use a chat not too?
HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 7 months ago
4 MDs and not a single brain
Risk@feddit.uk 7 months ago
I work in healthcare. Doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.
SpoopyKing@lemmy.sdf.org 7 months ago
Why is the publication date June 2024?
RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months 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.
WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com 7 months ago
At least the AI saw personal medical info and Nope!'d out of that?
Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 months 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.
hissingmeerkat@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
I don’t think HIPPA applies in Jerusalem.
Lucien@hexbear.net 7 months 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”.
hissingmeerkat@sh.itjust.works 7 months 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
Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
Innovation under capitalism:
MataVatnik@lemmy.world 7 months ago
OOOOF
Frenchy@aussie.zone 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.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 7 months ago
We all know Elsevier only upholds the highest standards, after all why would they have such a large market share?
NegativeInf@lemmy.world 7 months ago
That name. Being a hobbyist with niche interests has made me hate them so very much. Scihub forever.
gregorum@lemm.ee 7 months ago
because they’re all as bad as most of us and only read the ehadlien :(
fossilesque@mander.xyz 7 months ago
We UpLoAdEd ThE wRoNg VeRsIoN
pubpeer.com/…/F93A8D69350BC6B12AB48B132161A7
Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 months ago
Editors, typesetters and peer reviewers have also been replaced with AI.
GenEcon@lemm.ee 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@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
They were using AI to proof it