Bizarre, clearly inaccurate imagery created by Midjourney skated past peer-review at a well-known journal.
      • Blueoaky@mander.xyz
        5·
        9 months ago

        Frontiers has many different journals. The quality of the journal highly depends on the editor of the journal. But there has been reports that Frontiers has been involved in predatory actions. They used rejected papers and re-submitted them to other journals (as they have a lot of journals and some paper topics can fit in several journals). This is seen as predatory behavior. Overall I would argue that Frontiers is borderline, it would not be my first choice. Keep in mind, as an Open access journal they get paid my the author’s. Each article costs around 2.000$, so they need to publish papers in order to survive as a business.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    2·
    9 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    This week, the scientific journal Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology published research featuring bogus imagery made with Midjourney, one of the most popular AI image generators.

    Dingjun Hao, a researcher at Xi’an Jiaotong University and co-author of the study, did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.

    The OpenAI text generator ChatGPT is proficient enough to get farkakte research past the supposedly discerning eyes of reviewers.

    So, just because the illustrations are clearly nonsense cosplaying as science, we shouldn’t overlook AI engines’ ability to pass off BS as real.

    Alexander Pearson, a data scientist at the University of Chicago and co-author of that study, noted at the time that “Generative text technology has a great potential for democratizing science, for example making it easier for non-English-speaking scientists to share their work with the broader community,” but “it’s imperative that we think carefully on best practices for use.”

    The average reader may have a hard time considering signaling pathways when they’re still busy counting exactly how many balls the rat is supposed to have.

    The original article contains 732 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • PenguinCoder@beehaw.orgEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      It’s not about saving words, it’s about getting the articles point across. That’s a summary, vs a reduction.