Scientists aghast at bizarre AI rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed article | It’s unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.::It’s unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.

    • Researchgrant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      This article was supposedly reviewed. The reviewers are listed on the article’s web page. This publisher is normally reputable, so I’d tend to believe it, even though the image was obviously not properly scrutinized. The article was also retracted after 3 days. I’m not saying there are no problems with science publications, but the things you are saying are not true for this one case. Also this is a secondary source, so there is no original data here, just an article citing a lot of primary sources to summarize the topic. So, the replication issue doesn’t even apply to this paper. Again all valid issues in general, but not so much here…

        • Researchgrant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          10 months ago

          I did read that article the first time you linked it. Can you go back and read my reply again? I agreed that there is a problem with reproducibility, but that has nothing to do with a paper where no experiments were done.

          • Haagel@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            So it’s OK to publish “research” that’s been generated by AI so long as there are no experiments involved? I’m sorry. I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

            There has clearly been a massive decline in academic integrity lately, as evidenced by this ridiculous paper and so many others. Why should any of it be excusable?

            • Researchgrant@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              It’s like I’m taking to a wall. I completely agree with you that this article is egregious. I’m simply pointing out that your talking points were completely invalid when it comes to this, and bringing up reproducibility and non peer reviewed articles retracts from the point that this article followed those rules and was still published. Blame the reviewers, blame the editor, blame the fame hungry scientists, but bringing up totally unrelated problems with science pubs makes you sound like an idiot, which clearly you are. Go ahead and reply again l. I will not bother reading it.

      • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        10 months ago

        The article was also retracted after 3 days.

        Scientific articles should never be retracted. Publishers should make that impossible. Scientists should have balls and be able to stand by their word.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          no it’s important to have a mechanism by which to say “this was wrong. we fucked up. don’t use this as a source, attempt to replicate it, or use its results as a basis for new research.” intellectual honesty and rigor are more important than “balls”.

          • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            I don’t see the problem with attempting to replicate it, so long as you are informed that (as far as we now know) the experiment will not go the way it was intended. But you might learn something new, or find out that in specific circumstances, it actually does work.

          • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            to have a mechanism by which to say "this was wrong. we fucked up.

            Yes. But then you do not delete anything. You ADD this statement and leave the original stuff untouched, so that everybody can see afterwards what has been going on.

            (Unless you want to become a politician)

            • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              10 months ago

              funny, that’s exactly what a retraction is. you don’t destroy the original stuff, you just publish a statement that says “Hey, that stuff? it’s no good.” individual journals have their own policies, of course, but that’s the template from which reputable journals build their policies. so the problem you’re trying to fix simply doesn’t exist.

        • KryptonBlur@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Retractions are important in case issues with the method are found after publication. For example, if it turns out a piece of equipment was improperly calibrated and so the results can’t be trusted, a retraction of any work based on those results would be expected.

    • Lojcs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Review and replication are completely different things. If publications had to replicate results during review nothing would get published and submission fees would be through the roof

  • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    10 months ago

    The impact of image and text generators on scientific research is a blessing disguised as a curse, as it shows how sloppy (or in this case, non-existent) reviewing has become.

    Perhaps it’s time to review the reviewing?

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      The article in question is titled “Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway,” which was authored by three researchers in China, including the corresponding author Dingjun Hao of Xi’an Honghui Hospital. It was published online Tuesday in the journal Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology.

      The issue of fake papers coming out of China has been known as an epidemic for at least a decade. “Publish or perish” is a worldwide problem but it’s another level there.

      AI just makes this funnier.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      About a decade back, a reputable scientist published an article in a top journal in his field, “proving” that people are able to see the future. People said the same thing then, but I doubt anything has changed.

  • Muehe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    At this point somebody should really create a /c/Aipocalypse community or something to collect stuff like this.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Appall and scorn ripped through scientists’ social media networks Thursday as several egregiously bad AI-generated figures circulated from a peer-reviewed article recently published in a reputable journal.

    But, looking closer only reveals more flaws, including the labels “dissilced,” Stemm cells," “iollotte sserotgomar,” and “dck.”

    Many researchers expressed surprise and dismay that such a blatantly bad AI-generated image could pass through the peer-review system and whatever internal processing is in place at the journal.

    One scientific integrity expert questioned whether it provide an overly complicated explanation of “how to make a donut with colorful sprinkles.”

    The image is supposed to provide visual representations of how the signaling pathway from Figure 2 regulates the biological properties of spermatogonial stem cells.

    As such, research journals have recently set new authorship guidelines for AI-generated text to try to address the problem.


    The original article contains 496 words, the summary contains 137 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • General_Effort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    The journal is: Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology

    Non-rhetorical question: Is there any journal with “Frontiers” in the name that is not a bit lawless?

    To me, it implies that the journal is more “open-minded”, for better or worse.

    • ReveredOxygen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t have the answer to your question, but have you looked at the article? I don’t think any journal would typically be publishing utter nonsense as the images in it

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not a reputable journal. Not one where science actually takes place. But there are journals for anything, including journals where the peer-review is limited to your payment.