I said it before and I'll say it again: scientific journals have hardly any relevance any more, except for academic careers.
I said it before and I'll say it again: scientific journals have hardly any relevance any more, except for academic careers.
I said it before and I'll say it again: scientific journals have hardly any relevance any more, except for academic careers.
AI is just speeding up this evolution. We urgently need to rethink scientific communication!
@academicchatter #academia #ugent #Science #academicchatter
https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/the-exponential-enshittification
> "Literally the only other solution I can envision is to force LLM manufacturers to pay a significant tax to subsidize the journal review system that they are about to destroy."
Just charge a reading fee for each submitted article. This nonsense would stop overnight. And blacklist any author caught plagiarizing via 'AI' toolchains. If something comes from an AI the AI should be cited in the references, something like:
[AI][chatENG] ... or ... [AI:chatENG] ...
@firefly AI is not the only problem. The fact those articles got published is merely a symptom of a far larger problem, mostly created by the combination of carreers depending on number of publications and for-profit scientific publishers. Even without AI many publications contribute nothing. I have seen people reinvent linear models as a "powerful new method".
Yeah, "publish or perish" is not a sound scientific model. Nowadays many institutional researchers, writers and publishers have more in common with social media influencers than they do with bonafide scientists.
> "We urgently need to rethink scientific communication!"
The solution to lazybones using AI for journal manuscripts is to simply go back to the old school model of charging a submission and reading fee for all journal article submissions. And then issue a refund of the reading fee ONLY to the authors of articles chosen for publication--those which show up to the conference to present the paper.
This would weed out the majority share of the nonsense and ensure staff could be paid to really review manuscripts.
Imagine if the USPTO didn't charge a fee for patents and trademarks. Now you know why they do. The Patent and Trademark system would self-destruct in a fortnight. Instead of painstakingly perfecting one's claims to avoid wasting money, claimants would throw a never-ending stream of crappy claims applications at the patent examiners.
Many poetry journals and magazines formerly charged reading fees to submit work. This limited the amount of garbage they had to sort through. If you have to pay to play then you're much, much more likely to play your best.
The online revolution and the entitlement mentality created by misguided anti-copyright zealots have convinced an entire generation that, "information is free." Well, no, actually, it isn't. If you want good information, it costs sweat, blood, tears, talent, and time to produce--and all the same pains to filter out the garbage.
The extent of this is probably much greater than you have uncovered here.
@[email protected] @[email protected]
I think back to these hoaxes, which con-artists invented to convince people that evolution is real:
Piltdown Man
Lucy
Archaeopteryx
BrontosaurusAnd other "scientific" hoaxes which will get me banned from the soviet-controlled, fedposter-infested, censorship-friendly fediverse if I even name them ...
Publish or perish ...?
@firefly I don't know if @academicchatter can set blocks, but with only 1 right out of 4, your post does sound rather off-topic:
[1] known fraud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
[2] generally accepted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29
[3] #FredHoyle and #LeeSpetner suspected forgery, but the palaeontologists' consensus is that it's real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx#Authenticity
[4] generally accepted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brontosaurus