undefined

points

[-]

You'd think that the humans being paid to review these things are actually reviewing them. Journals, laywers etc. are expensive. With the addition of AI, it should be easier than ever to review things on their merits.

Maybe some part of it is that the deluge of slop is uncovering how poorly/sloppily these social institutions were working in the first place.

by truckyday1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> You'd think that the humans being paid to review these things are actually reviewing them. Journals, laywers etc. are expensive. With the addition of AI, it should be easier than ever to review things on their merits.

Isn’t the field notably corrupt. I’ve seen some pretty batshit stuff make it at least briefly into reputable journal. Anyone remember the “5G Covid” and “The world is a living ball of flesh” schizo dermatologist? That guy at least briefly got his stuff published by the NIH.

by avaer1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Anecdote: I've had at two friends publish "papers" just by slapping their names on something they had literally nothing to do with, out of pure nepotism.

This wouldn't be helped by an AI watermark. What would help is if the reviewer used AI to look up the authors and see the authorship claims are dubious. The papers are still up.

I do think the academic publishing field is corrupt, which is why I'm not convinced it should be on AI providers to help bail it out of doing its one job (verification and trust).