Robot-written reviews fool academics
timeshighereducation.com
Robot-written reviews fool academics
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: Robot-written reviews fool academics
#2Confirms the bias in the bogus peer-review bureaucracy: editors accept papers from those they know, without reading the recommendations. Its an old-boys network?
Re: Robot-written reviews fool academics
#3Confirms the bias in the bogus peer-review bureaucracy: editors accept papers from those they know, without reading the recommendations. Its an old-boys network?
It seems much more that this is due to the rise of predatory publishers, where editors are willfully lax on standards, as the goal is not to make money but sucker scientists out of open-access publishing fees. Many prestigious journals just blind editors to authors anyway.
Re: Robot-written reviews fool academics
#4I'm not very surprised. If you've ever reviewed papers for an academic conference, you'll find that the vast majority of them are just very bad. The average ACM conference has a ~20% or so acceptance rate - and the remaining 80% isn't just a hair away from being accepted. For a big chunk of it, it's just garbage.
Ill defined research problems, vague statements, poor methodology, many grammatical mistakes... given the nature of peer review, it's only natural that people who author nonsensical papers would nod at nonsensical reviews.
For people saying that this is because academia is an old boys network: not quite so. While it can definitely be like that when you get to the top, the vast majority of peer reviewers for most conferences are just grad students, post docs, or junior researchers who don't really discriminate by trying to guess who wrote the paper.
Re: Robot-written reviews fool academics
#5It reminds me the "Postmodernism Generator"
Re: Robot-written reviews fool academics
#6It reminds me the "Postmodernism Generator" http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
And the Sokal affair [1]
Re: Robot-written reviews fool academics
#7This is how the ivory tower crumbles - as it becomes common knowledge that scientists are as gullible as anyone, if not more so.
Re: Robot-written reviews fool academics
#8This is how the ivory tower crumbles - as it becomes common knowledge that scientists are as gullible as anyone, if not more so.
Reviewers make specific and general comments. The general comments are usually ledd important but serve as general reminders, for example, to check for typos, to bettersituate your findings in context, and the positive aspects of having converging, objective measures. These generalities usually cut across disciplines and take no real expertise. It is thr specific reviewer comments that make or break a paper. These fabricated reviews do not produce specific, intelligent reviewer comments, just the general comments that sane scientists do not resist or think much about.
Re: Robot-written reviews fool academics
#9This is how the ivory tower crumbles - as it becomes common knowledge that scientists are as gullible as anyone, if not more so.
Well, the actual paper tested experienced academics, grad students, and novices on their ability to differentiate, so you can measure that hypothesis of yours.
Re: Robot-written reviews fool academics
#10If you generated papers with MIT's SCIgen, reviewed them with this, and then responded to those reviews with short notes from Cleverbot, you could put together a whole collection of "peer-reviewed", fee-charging journals. You'd want to make sure they cross-cited each other heavily, thus earning the journals and their "authors" prestige.