Article <v9arsc$2q87g$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<v9arsc$2q87g$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ChatGPT contributing to current science papers
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 12:20:10 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v9arsc$2q87g$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v98m8k$ttm6$1@dont-email.me> <v99f89$2lqop$6@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: rokimoto557@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="75331"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:74ekgMxqkIwFwwvbG2JRLMVlY9w=
In-Reply-To: <v99f89$2lqop$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
	FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,
	FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 5429

On 8/10/2024 11:38 PM, JTEM wrote:
>   RonO wrote:
> 
> 
>> Several examples of scientists using AI to write papers with AI 
>> generated mistakes that passed peer review. 
> 
> If you're only finding out now that "Peer Review" is heavily
> flawed, you haven't been paying attention.
> 
> THE BIGGEST PROBLEM is that when one ever hear of one type of
> mistake:  When "Peer Review" validates garbage. What also
> happens and you NEVER hear about is when "Peer Review"
> silences good science, keeps it out of print.
> 
> 
> 

Peer review has it's flaws, but there is absolutely no doubt that it is 
the best means we have for giving research it's first pass evaluation. 
Peer review can be manipulated (Sternberg and Meyer), and groups of 
researchers have been exposed for recommending each others papers for 
peer review (some journals ask the authors to recommend possible peer 
reviewers in their field).

Peer review doesn't just catch flawed research, but reviewer suggestions 
nearly always make a paper better than it initially was.  It is rare for 
any paper to be accepted without reviewer comments that need to be acted 
on.  I have only had 2 papers accepted as submitted without 
modification.  They are my 3rd and 4th most cited papers (576 and 360 
citations according to google scholar).  The first paper was the first 
such example for all involved even my major professor.  The second was 
the first such example for all but 3 of 16 authors.  My guess is that 
the majority of researchers never experience such an event.  I wrote the 
initial draft of the first paper, and my major professor suggested a 
bunch of revisions, and then he suggested revisions of the revisions for 
multiple subsequent drafts.  He often did this.  One of his students 
screamed in his face after an extended run of revisions for what she was 
writing.  The result was a paper where we had gone over the results and 
conclusions so many times that there was nothing left to add, and 
nothing that was out of place.  The second example occurred because some 
of the authors did not want to accept some of the conclusions from the 
data for reasons that should not have affected the scientific 
conclusions.  As a result we had an intensive internal peer review where 
the manuscript was revised, and the methods were thoroughly evaluated 
with the limitations of the methodology clearly described in the paper. 
Wording of the conclusions and discussion were gone over multiple times 
to try to satisfy the dissenters.  In the end the dissenters asked to be 
removed as authors for a paper that was submitted to and accepted 
without revisions by PNAS, and became a widely cited paper in the field.

Usually peer review catches things that need to be revised, but for 
those two papers we did it ourselves.

Ron Okimoto