Moritz Negwer

@richlv @HolgerTDittmann @academicchatter Related: Adam Mastroianni argues in these blog posts that peer review is conceptually unfit to weed out bad science (and that may not matter all that much in the grand scheme of things). Well worth a read:

The rise and fall of peer review
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

The dance of the naked emperors
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-dance-of-the-naked-emperors

Science is a strong-link problem
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/science-is-a-strong-link-problem

@richlv @HolgerTDittmann @academicchatter I mean I agree, the reviewer messed up here. But the entire chain of supposed checks before them did too.

I would argue that this is an especially egregious example of a wider trend. The current peer review system is not well prepared for the coming onslaught of cheap low-effort GenAI sludge.

Combine cheap generation and insufficiently calibrated bullshit detectors, plus huge incentives for publication, and we’ll keep seeing more like this.

@HolgerTDittmann @academicchatter If only! Frontiers actually publishes the reviewer’s names, in the hope that the reputational risk leads to stricter enforcement. Not so in this case.

Vice apparently interviewed one of the reviewers, and he essentially said “not my problem”: https://www.vice.com/en/article/dy3jbz/scientific-journal-frontiers-publishes-ai-generated-rat-with-gigantic-penis-in-worrying-incident