I created a strange picture using artificial intelligence for my thesis, but it passed.
Haebom
1
1
Created by
Haebom
Created at
One of the topics that has been controversial in the scientific community recently is the case of AI-generated content being published in academic journals. In particular, a recent case in which a paper containing AI-generated images and diagrams that were obviously unrealistic was passed through peer review has received a lot of attention. This case raises serious questions about the credibility of academic journals, as well as the credibility of the scientific community as a whole.
As one user discovered on __T50_____ (formerly Twitter), a recent study in the journal Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology contains a number of AI-generated images and diagrams that are clearly unrealistic. For example, one image shows a rat with a shape that defies scientific explanation. In particular, it is labeled with terms like "testtomcels," "retat," and "dck," which are nonsensical.
This incident raises several important issues.
First, it suggests that there is a need for discussion on how content creation using AI technologies should be perceived within the academic community.
Second, we ask what was the background that allowed these cases to pass the peer review process, and through this, we raise questions about the effectiveness and reliability of peer review.
Third, there is a criticism that the journal 'Frontiers' is a so-called 'predatory journal' (a journal that receives publication fees from researchers and does not properly conduct peer review), and we need to reconsider the existence of such journals and their negative impact on the scientific community.
Way out?
Strengthen the peer review process: Criteria for assessing the credibility of AI-generated content in the peer review process should be established and thoroughly enforced.
Improving journal accreditation systems: We need a system that sets clear definitions and criteria for identifying ‘predatory journals’ and helps researchers easily identify trustworthy journals.
Finding appropriate ways to utilize AI technology: While recognizing the positive aspects that AI technology can contribute to academic research, appropriate guidelines must be established to ensure that its use does not undermine the reliability of research.
In fact, there are many strange journals among thesis journals. Such journals are journals that do not even do peer review, but simply pass through or register DOIs and the like if you pay them. In Korea, there are levels such as SCI and KCI, but in reality, such strange journals exist even in SCI. As mentioned earlier, the journal Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, which led to this incident, is said to be a journal that is not very trusted in the academic community.
Personally, I think it should have been filtered out during the initial acceptance process, not peer review, but the biggest problem is that it went straight to peer review and even acceptance without any such process. (The journal in question even has paid publications, charging more than $3,000.)
The fact that these journals do not properly conduct peer reviews, which is different from the journal's authority or usual behavior, and that they cannot even filter out strange images generated by artificial intelligence, makes me distrust journals compiled by humans...
I will end this article by introducing a typeset that I personally use a lot.
Subscribe to 'haebom'
📚 Welcome to Haebom's archives. --- I post articles related to IT 💻, economy 💰, and humanities 🎭. If you are curious about my thoughts, perspectives or interests, please subscribe. Would you like to be notified when new articles are posted? 🔔 Yes, that means subscribe. haebom@kakao.com
