Comment on Scientists reportedly hiding AI text prompts in academic papers to receive positive peer reviews
slevinkelevra@sh.itjust.works 3 days agoWell the ones using AI to do the reviews for them are actually at fault here
Comment on Scientists reportedly hiding AI text prompts in academic papers to receive positive peer reviews
slevinkelevra@sh.itjust.works 3 days agoWell the ones using AI to do the reviews for them are actually at fault here
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Yep. At that point, why even bother taking the review? You’re not forced to do reviews. Never taking any is likely to negatively impact your career, but still… just decline the review if you’re going to use a LLM for it anyway. Have some dignity.
Mobiuthuselah@mander.xyz 3 days ago
It’s a requirement of publication. This isn’t like a book review.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 days ago
No it’s not. I have both published in a variety of scientific journals, reviewed for a couple journals, and turned down reviews for a couple journals.
No journal checks your “review history” before allowing you to publish. However, if you consistently turn down reviews from a journal, the editor is likely going to get annoyed and you will probably have a harder time publishing in that journal in the future.
FortyTwo@lemmy.world 3 days ago
It differs per community. Some of the more hype-y conferences I’ve submitted to require at least one co-author to review other papers as a condition to submission. I’ve not seen this at less hyped conferences or journals yet, though. But different communities tend to do things very differently, so many people will have different experiences.