Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 89
3/15/2024, 10:13:06 PM
X
In reply to:
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
570d
@linasvepstas @say_cem @GaryMarcus Most of their journals mediocre at best. Also this is totally editors and proof readers fault not picking up on this. Also as i mentioned before introduction part of the paper is unimportant for the findings.
Linas
@linasvepstas
·
570d
@DeryaTR_ @say_cem @GaryMarcus Elsevier is a top-tier publisher. Maybe not quite as respected as Springer, but maybe #2 or #3 in respectability ranking. Here's another screenshot:
Pтiт Poиeч de Fiиdцs
@0xdefec7edcafe
·
571d
Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic:
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
570d
@say_cem @linasvepstas @GaryMarcus Totally agree. In fact in some of these journals there are no reviewers, you pay you publish!
Cem Say
@say_cem
·
570d
@linasvepstas @DeryaTR_ @GaryMarcus Doesn't this latest scandal show that the human reviewers and editors screwed up? In fact, if a LLM reviewed those papers, it would have noticed that specific kind of anomaly easily, right?
Linas
@linasvepstas
·
570d
@DeryaTR_ @GaryMarcus The posted examples of LLM-generated content were from materials science and chemistry articles, published by Elsevier. One had all-Chinese authors, the other all-Islamic authors.
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
570d
@GaryMarcus This is not a major issue in STEM research, as you need to perform actual experiments and generate meaningful data to publish; LLMs can’t do the experiments. However, this could be problematic in social sciences.

The statement expresses frustration with the perceived lack of thoroughness in the editing and review process of a study. It criticizes the authors and reviewers for what the commenter sees as a failure to ensure the quality of the work. The tone is accusatory and suggests a lack of trust in the study's validity due to the editing issues.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement could be seen as harsh but does not seem to intend harm; it aims to highlight concerns about academic rigor. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by not singling out individuals but rather commenting on the process.
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The comment promotes understanding of the importance of careful review in academic publishing, but the tone may not encourage constructive dialogue. [-1]
  4. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The commenter is engaging in criticism of the process, which could lead to correction if the concerns are acknowledged. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to highlight a potential issue in academic publishing, which could be seen as aiming for the betterment of academic standards. [+1]