11mo ago

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 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.

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.

World News @beehaw.org

Scientists aghast at bizarre AI rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed article

arstechnica.com /science/2024/02/scientists-aghast-at-bizarre-ai-rat-with-huge-genitals-in-peer-reviewed-article/

50 15

32 comments

- dck 🤣
  
  testtomcels. Test them cells, they're too big
  
  Not sure what's bothering everyone, it's clearly a very normal rat. It's even helpfully labelled "Rat" in case you're not sure.
  Just a rat and its perfectly normal dck.
- I saw this posted yesterday without context, I didn't realize this came from an actual published paper. Yikes.
- Reminds me of that old southpark episode where Randy gets ball-cancer
  
  Buffalo soljah

"It's unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review."
That's because the paper wasn't peer-reviewed at all. In fact, the majority of published medical and psychological papers are never reviewed or replicated.
The scientific method has sold out to the profit incentive, at least in academia.
- 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...
  
  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...
  
  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.
- 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

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

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?
- 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.
- 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.

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!

ah yes, the wonders of predatory publishing

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.
- 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
  
  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.

32 comments