4 ms·
Obvious that these authors listed ChatGPT to get attention. The papers themselves are very short. The medxriv preprint [1] should be a blogpost. The paper in On
by Gatsky 4y ago
Obvious that these authors listed ChatGPT to get attention. The papers themselves are very short. The medxriv preprint [1] should be a blogpost. The paper in Oncoscience is nonsense [2]. It was submitted on Dec 14th and accepted on Dec 15th 2022, apparently contravening the journal’s stated peer review policy (find me an article anywhere that gets peer reviewed in under 24 hours). The journal presumably realised the clickbait value and rushed it through.
Suffice to say, the authors’ cheap strategy has worked. The medrxiv preprint has an impressive view and retweet count. Expect a flood of ChatGPT authored papers.
[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.19.22283643v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.19.22283643v...
[2] https://www.oncoscience.us/article/571/text/ https://www.oncoscience.us/article/571/text/
- izacus 4y agoAnd then the academia will wonder why general public stopped trusting science again.
- heyitsguay 4y agoThis is actually a case of credulous laypeople drawing attention to something academics know enough to dismiss (and to communicate to others that it is dismissal-worthy)
- izacus 4y agoAnd yet it's been published in a journal with an expedited peer review to gather drama and clicks which undermines everything academics claim to stand for. What does that do to credibility of other papers?
- ramblerman 4y agoThat would be like suggesting hackernews works well, just don't check out the front page, you and your friends have a curated list of articles that are actually worthwhile reading.
- exabrial 4y agoThank you, just about to post the same thing.