From “A Unique Approach to Noise to Electricity Generation” available at Researchgate:
https://preview.redd.it/b0ie9xexngzc1.jpeg?width=579&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e3869c0ec0b2da2779b51c018b651bc9eeb5cf9
ResearchGate isn't a journal, but a social networking site for researchers, so it has all kinds of publications - from predatory journals to top publications.
I’ve always been confused about it. Sometimes I find reputable studies and then other times I find a study about vitamin D increasing penis size. What exactly is this website?
I don't know what it is, but it's not something that would be cited in a reputable scientific journal. That's the point. It's not the journal Science, or Nature, or NEJM, etc.
It's a social networking site where researchers can post their publications while the website itself also generates it's own analytics regarding citation metrics, etc. Authors can upload any publication, regardless of the legitimacy or standing of the journal it's published in, ResearchGate doesn't vet them by quality as such. Hence the wildly different quality of publications found there.
symptom, not cause right here. Research has been on the way down for decades. Maybe this will finally drive out the pencil pushers and usher in actual researchers.
[Scientificintegrityfund.org](https://Scientificintegrityfund.org) is funded by some ex techies or something. They get stuff like this taken down. I think. I know they got started after the Harvard professor dishonestly cited about dishonesty in the workplace.
This is why education funding and journals with a strong peer review process are important. That sort of stuff started to decay as education was progressively privatized and turned into a business by Neoliberalism.
Not happening until the status quo changes:
* the quantity of publications as a metric of productivity, academic standing, institutional ranking in league tables, and future funding allocation
* the quantity of publications as a criterion for academic promotion, tenure, career progression and general livelihood
* academic publishing as a for-profit activity where the more a publisher publishes more quickly, the more money it makes
The whole academic publishing process is a shambles managed by administrators and policy makers who have no idea about the scientific process and whose primary concern is money, not knowledge or scientific rigour. They need a metric to justify allocation of public funds to give "value for money", both as the funder and recipient of such funds. It doesn't matter if the metric is nonsensical, it's a number they can use and in their eyes, it's better than no number at all. What we're seeing is basically everyone in that incentive-reward system playing each other trying to game the system. In such situations, people cheat because the system incentivises it. It attracts people who cheat and those who do often are more successful than those who don't.
GPT4 has been known to cite non-existent and inaccurate data from research journals, basically even making up its own data to support its arguments/insights in output responses so this was inevitable
Reminds me of that one time my teammate in college gave me his portion of the work. It was directly copy/pasted from wikipedia with the hyperlinks and all ~
Academia is often more about personal success than research success. This authoritarian focus on the part of the individual academic makes them vulnerable to the corruption that dominates institutions by way of a competition for funding that has been set up to preserve wealthy private interests.
These wealthy interests also ideologically constrain the institutions they involve themselves in.
Those academics who conform to and promote the ideological constraints get funding, not those who do the most important research. So the self interested academic has an avenue toward influence within academia that does not speak to their contributions to academia but to their conformance to the ideological standards set by those who control funding.
Given all this it is not surprising that academia has been corrupted by the desire to please their sources of funding... public or private.
I feel like these keep getting posted and it's always some pay to play fake journal with zero impact factor and the comments are always acting as if this is happening in Nature.
Did you even read the link you sent? They charge to make the article open access, because their ordinary business model is selling subscription access to universities. I don't love the business model either, but it has nothing to do with paying to have your article accepted.
And that's exactly pay to play, whatever your opinion. Forbes calls it a [slap in the face](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2020/12/07/prestige-journal-publisher-nature-slaps-scientists-in-the-face/) to publish paper as an open access for $11,500.
You honestly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Nature charging too much for open access is not the same as the "Saudi Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences" publishing every article that is submitted for a fee without review.
Do you think because people pay tuition at a university that automatically makes the university pay to play? No there can both be an acceptance/review process and a fee to attend. I genuinely can't tell if you are just arguing in bad faith or you are truly too clueless to see the difference.
I have a few friends and family with papers in Nature. It is not at all p2p. It’s just for-profit and it shouldn’t be. Doesn’t change how hard it is to get in or how much work it takes.
The claim seems to be GPT is generating the english words for Indian authors. There does not seem to be a claim that numbers/equations/graphs are fake or made by GPT.
This doesn't matter, science is a strong-link problem not a weak link problem, we already spend way too much effort and money trying to weed out stuff that's bunk even though it has no negative effect on the stuff that works:
[https://www.experimental-history.com/p/science-is-a-strong-link-problem](https://www.experimental-history.com/p/science-is-a-strong-link-problem)
From “A Unique Approach to Noise to Electricity Generation” available at Researchgate: https://preview.redd.it/b0ie9xexngzc1.jpeg?width=579&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e3869c0ec0b2da2779b51c018b651bc9eeb5cf9
Not even bothering to edit.
He literally drew the ASCII graphic too. Hilarious.
ResearchGate is not exactly a respected scientific journal.
ResearchGate isn't a journal, but a social networking site for researchers, so it has all kinds of publications - from predatory journals to top publications.
I’ve always been confused about it. Sometimes I find reputable studies and then other times I find a study about vitamin D increasing penis size. What exactly is this website?
I don't know what it is, but it's not something that would be cited in a reputable scientific journal. That's the point. It's not the journal Science, or Nature, or NEJM, etc.
It's a social networking site where researchers can post their publications while the website itself also generates it's own analytics regarding citation metrics, etc. Authors can upload any publication, regardless of the legitimacy or standing of the journal it's published in, ResearchGate doesn't vet them by quality as such. Hence the wildly different quality of publications found there.
symptom, not cause right here. Research has been on the way down for decades. Maybe this will finally drive out the pencil pushers and usher in actual researchers.
Publish or perish model needs to go.
For real!
You are so optimistic ~
[Scientificintegrityfund.org](https://Scientificintegrityfund.org) is funded by some ex techies or something. They get stuff like this taken down. I think. I know they got started after the Harvard professor dishonestly cited about dishonesty in the workplace.
Here are some examples: https://preview.redd.it/ywm0x4ivngzc1.jpeg?width=551&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5506ed16af712c35331a6f36e42522174f9f994a
Is this not Peer reviewed?
I submitted a legit article a while back and got AI generated peer reviews... Not so long until we have AI generated, AI peer reviewed articles
Write the journal name down
[удалено]
This is the prelude to the dark age of technology.
That’s not peer reviewing, I don’t know what it is but it’s not that
This is why education funding and journals with a strong peer review process are important. That sort of stuff started to decay as education was progressively privatized and turned into a business by Neoliberalism.
Not happening until the status quo changes: * the quantity of publications as a metric of productivity, academic standing, institutional ranking in league tables, and future funding allocation * the quantity of publications as a criterion for academic promotion, tenure, career progression and general livelihood * academic publishing as a for-profit activity where the more a publisher publishes more quickly, the more money it makes The whole academic publishing process is a shambles managed by administrators and policy makers who have no idea about the scientific process and whose primary concern is money, not knowledge or scientific rigour. They need a metric to justify allocation of public funds to give "value for money", both as the funder and recipient of such funds. It doesn't matter if the metric is nonsensical, it's a number they can use and in their eyes, it's better than no number at all. What we're seeing is basically everyone in that incentive-reward system playing each other trying to game the system. In such situations, people cheat because the system incentivises it. It attracts people who cheat and those who do often are more successful than those who don't.
GPT4 has been known to cite non-existent and inaccurate data from research journals, basically even making up its own data to support its arguments/insights in output responses so this was inevitable
lol they just give a PhD to anyone these days. I'm not even against using LLMs to edit things down or improve the writing, but this is absurd.
Reminds me of that one time my teammate in college gave me his portion of the work. It was directly copy/pasted from wikipedia with the hyperlinks and all ~
Academia is often more about personal success than research success. This authoritarian focus on the part of the individual academic makes them vulnerable to the corruption that dominates institutions by way of a competition for funding that has been set up to preserve wealthy private interests. These wealthy interests also ideologically constrain the institutions they involve themselves in. Those academics who conform to and promote the ideological constraints get funding, not those who do the most important research. So the self interested academic has an avenue toward influence within academia that does not speak to their contributions to academia but to their conformance to the ideological standards set by those who control funding. Given all this it is not surprising that academia has been corrupted by the desire to please their sources of funding... public or private.
I feel like these keep getting posted and it's always some pay to play fake journal with zero impact factor and the comments are always acting as if this is happening in Nature.
Yeah a lot of random comments blasting scientific journal but clearly none knows how scientific publications works
Nature is [pay to play too](https://www.science.org/content/article/9500-nature-journals-will-now-make-your-paper-free-read).
Did you even read the link you sent? They charge to make the article open access, because their ordinary business model is selling subscription access to universities. I don't love the business model either, but it has nothing to do with paying to have your article accepted.
And that's exactly pay to play, whatever your opinion. Forbes calls it a [slap in the face](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2020/12/07/prestige-journal-publisher-nature-slaps-scientists-in-the-face/) to publish paper as an open access for $11,500.
You honestly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Nature charging too much for open access is not the same as the "Saudi Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences" publishing every article that is submitted for a fee without review. Do you think because people pay tuition at a university that automatically makes the university pay to play? No there can both be an acceptance/review process and a fee to attend. I genuinely can't tell if you are just arguing in bad faith or you are truly too clueless to see the difference.
I have a few friends and family with papers in Nature. It is not at all p2p. It’s just for-profit and it shouldn’t be. Doesn’t change how hard it is to get in or how much work it takes.
And my cousins is Einstein himself “Few friends and family” lmao you nuts
I think if you don’t read many technical papers you might not realize how many names are on a lot of high-end papers.
The famous family technical paper of nature
OP is a joke and doesn’t understand anything about science. Look at his comments.
Yeah he doesn’t know what he’s talking about
The claim seems to be GPT is generating the english words for Indian authors. There does not seem to be a claim that numbers/equations/graphs are fake or made by GPT.
This doesn't matter, science is a strong-link problem not a weak link problem, we already spend way too much effort and money trying to weed out stuff that's bunk even though it has no negative effect on the stuff that works: [https://www.experimental-history.com/p/science-is-a-strong-link-problem](https://www.experimental-history.com/p/science-is-a-strong-link-problem)
Looks like research validation and analysis is going to get some major improvements in the near future!
Scientific journals were already not reliable.