Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ChatGPT contributing to current science papers
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 21:09:21 -0400
Organization: Eek
Lines: 28
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v9bnc1$2v5g0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v98m8k$ttm6$1@dont-email.me> <v99f89$2lqop$6@dont-email.me>
 <v9arsc$2q87g$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: jtem01@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="86349"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qFzQJRg8YJrTXpASOTlSUAO40sQ=
Return-Path: <news@eternal-september.org>
X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
	id 37EB5229782; Sun, 11 Aug 2024 21:08:47 -0400 (EDT)
	by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D90E229765
	for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Sun, 11 Aug 2024 21:08:45 -0400 (EDT)
	id 599755DC2C; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 01:09:26 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
	by mod-relay-1.kamens.us (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37EF45DC26
	for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 01:09:26 +0000 (UTC)
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256)
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.eternal-september.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09CE35F83E
	for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 01:09:22 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: name/09CE35F83E; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com
	id 8F3BADC01A9; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 03:09:22 +0200 (CEST)
X-Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 03:09:22 +0200 (CEST)
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+t4OlHtkWaZ3IOcWAH88Yw2QeJoA+4O9w=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9arsc$2q87g$1@dont-email.me>
	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,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,
	URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 3604

  RonO wrote:

> 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.

It's irredeemably flawed. There needs to be transparency.

The biggest danger, and it does happen, is good science being killed
off by "Peer Review."

How to stop it?  Transparency. Let the rejected papers see the light
of day.

> 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).

Less concerned about bad science making it through. Science is self
correcting. Science is repeatable or it isn't science. We can
reasonably expect garbage to self correct. But the opposite isn't
true. Good science that is kept from seeing the light of day is a
loss to the world.


-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5