Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 08:42:10 UTC No. 16579272

>>16579254
it'll really suck for your career if you have to retract it

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 08:50:55 UTC No. 16579276

>>16579254
>Is it really this easy to be a scientist now?
It depends, was it some random scientist telling the AI to build the paper for them(with all the data, methods, discussion and conclusion given in the prompt) out of laziness and curiosity to see if journals even check what they publish? Or was it an outright sham?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 15:24:48 UTC No. 16579456

>>16579254
Because the peer reviewer asked ai to read through it.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 00:09:37 UTC No. 16579836

>>16579254
always was
>>16579272
easily prevented by making your research about some super boring shit nobody will ever read even if they're paid to. the fraudsters who get caught were all too cocky and tried to fake attention-grabbing results.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 00:19:21 UTC No. 16579840

>>16579254
What its going to do is make science pragmatic.
When any idiot can produce worthless trash and get it passed ( and then possibly retracted ) its going to make any scientist who can produce work of real world value all that much more valuable.
Arguably this has already been the case for decades, but AI has opened the floodgates. We will soon reach a point where a degree, even a PhD, is not sufficient to be recognized as a scientist. People who produce research and innovation which leads to practical applications will be awarded a RFcD instead.
>Whats a RFcD
Doctorate of being a REAL FUCKING CHAD
Anything else will be looked down as being a technician.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 00:30:06 UTC No. 16579849

>>16579840
>its going to make any scientist who can produce work of real world value all that much more valuable
Who's going to evaluate him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VdyrlGnpPM
There's nobody in the current structure. Yet the natural solution is to publish EVERYTHING online immediately with Ai indexing the works on the basis of their validity. And substitute peer-review with crowd-review so that anybody can comment on it, and readers can switch between comments of affiliated specialists and general public.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 03:38:00 UTC No. 16580949

>>16579272
>Reproducibility crisis declared academia-bound Koro syndrome

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 03:52:32 UTC No. 16580953

Is this shilling? There was a thread like this a few days ago already