Comment on Bots are better than humans at cracking ‘Are you a robot?’ Captcha tests, study finds

• Zeth0s@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  The downvotes to my comments shows that no many people here has ever done research or knows the editorial system of scientific journals :D

  source

  • C4d@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    There is some variation across disciplines; I do think that in general the process does catch a lot of frank rubbish (and discourages submission of obvious rubbish), but from time to time I do come across inherently flawed work in so-called “high impact factor” and allegedly “prestigious” journals.

    In the end, even after peer review, you need to have a good understanding of the field and to have developed and applied your critical appraisal skills.

    source

    • barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      And TBF just getting on arxiv also means you jumped a bullshit hurdle: Roughly speaking you need to be in a position in academia, or someone there needs to vouch for the publication. At the same time getting something published there isn’t exactly prestigious so there’s no real incentive to game the system, as such the bar is quite low but consistent.

      source

      • Zeth0s@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Arxiv is a pre print archive. Many very prestigious researchers put their pre prints there. It is as credible as any random journal. Reader of a paper must know what he is reading, and must critically assess it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Zeth0s@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Absolutely. One needs to know what is reading. That’s why pre prints are fine.

      High impact factor journals are full of works purposely wrong, made because author wants the results that readers are looking for (that is the easiest way to be published in high impact factor journal).

      timeshighereducation.com/…/papers-high-impact-jou…

      It’s the game

      source