Technology

60016 readers

2581 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

165

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. (arstechnica.com)

submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Researchgrant@lemmy.world 39 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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...

[–] Haagel@lemmings.world 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Please read the Wikipedia article about the replication crisis that I've linked. This is a widespread problem. Even the most prestigious cancer research institute in the world, Dana-Farber, has admitted to egregious forgery and plagiarism of their formerly published research.

"Publish or perish" indeed...

[–] Researchgrant@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 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 -23 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

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 2 points 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 -5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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)

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 15 points 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.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

They had to have balls as big as that rat's to publish it in the first place.

[–] KryptonNerd@slrpnk.net 4 points 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.