•

Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01465-y

Borrowing the idea of ‘bug bounties’ from the technology industry could provide a systematic way to detect and correct the errors that litter the scientific literature.

Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers

Borrowing the idea of ‘bug bounties’ from the technology industry could provide a systematic way to detect and correct the errors that litter the scientific literature.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/UnQ19

7 comments

Philharmonic3

•

Ok but first pay researchers to publish. Like WTF why aren't they already?

Fiivemacs

•

I think this is more about AI spamming the scientific world with literal trash.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/dy3jbz/scientific-journal-frontiers-publishes-ai-generated-rat-with-gigantic-penis-in-worrying-incident

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/fcell-11-1339390-1.pdf

AI is a literal plague and people are gobbling it up. It's so damn broken and shit right now it's not even funny.

Philharmonic3

•

Wait was that image published in a journal? That's insane. No reputable journal would ever let that go, so I'm sure it wasn't a reputable one.

Fiivemacs

•

My understanding is that it was submitted, reviewed and published then revoked when the absurdness was noticed. This isn't the first thing I've heard about terrible articles being published generated by ai. I wish I could remember the other one. It was recent too.

paysrenttobirds

•

This is what the publishers (the peer reviewed journals) used to do, right? I thought they got other research teams to comment on papers and even try duplicating some kinds of experiments before publication. Maybe that's just within certain disciplines? Maybe I'm nuts.

glomag

•

They ASK overworked people to do this for FREE. Not the duplicating part though, that would be very expensive in most cases and require its own funding.

paysrenttobirds

•

On reading more about it, I realize you are right that they were/are rarely paid by journals, but it used to be a prestigious part of your academic career, so it fit in as a normal and valued part of your research work, while being paid by their university or institute or whatever.

In fact, there are platforms that allow authors to pay to have their articles reviewed, but this is felt to be not gaining traction because the researchers' bosses consider it moonlighting instead of an essential part of the common work of advancing scientific knowledge.

I know in the 2000s my research advisor asked us to analyze papers and replicate methods and measurements from other groups on occasion, sometimes because he was a reviewer and sometimes just because it developed specialized skills in our field. We (and he) only worked so many hours each week, regardless it was research or review, and were paid a stipend/salary so we were all definitely getting paid for our time. The key was that the university "allowed" us to spend time on this sort of community service/professional development, by which I don't mean they really closely accounted for anything, but just didn't have a breakneck publish or perish vibe.

::: spoiler Title format Post title should mirror the news source title. ::: ::: spoiler URL format Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting. ::: ::: spoiler [Opinion] prefix Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. :::

Rules

::: spoiler 1. English only Title and associated content has to be in English. ::: ::: spoiler 2. No social media posts Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject. ::: ::: spoiler 3. Respectful communication All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences. ::: ::: spoiler 4. Inclusivity Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation. ::: ::: spoiler 5. Ad hominem attacks Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
::: ::: spoiler 6. Off-topic tangents Stay on topic. Keep it relevant. ::: ::: spoiler 7. Instance rules may apply If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced. :::

Companion communities

!legalnews@lemmy.zip - International and local legal news.

!technology@lemmy.zip - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.

!interestingshare@lemmy.zip - Interesting articles, projects, and research that doesn't fit the definition of news.