By Leonid Schneider, on research integrity, biomedical ethics and academic publishing
“it seems the AI used for an anonymous commenter is not able to read the article and randomly comments on the article. […] Sometimes, we feel that some random person commenting on the article may not have the insight or technical expertise to evaluate the article. It seems your AI model used to write such comments is not fully operational and is making mistakes” – a scholar opines on Smut Clyde
“This is unedifying but illustrative on so many levels of how quickly papermills have parasitised the Open Science paradigm and strip-mined all its resources. It also illustrates how quickly the incantatory Worship Words of Machine Learning shut down the critical faculties of reviewers when included in a manuscript, convincing them that its ludicrous claims are merely restatements of what they already know.” – Smut Clyde
“The proposition that a niche of citation brokers exists, opens our eyes to other transaction options..” . Smut Clyde
“The preference of Thippa Reddy Gadekallu et al. (Abdul Rehman Javed, Celestine O. Iwendi, Sharnil Nitin Pandya and Gaurav Jay Dhiman) for coercive citation and copy-pasting their review comments” – Maria de los Ángeles Oviedo García
“As you will see, there is a lot of papermilling happening in Gliwice, as if this place has suddenly become attractive to many “researchers” from different corners of the papermilling spectrum. ” – Alexander Magazinov
“BatDolphin-based sparse fuzzy algorithm, cat swarm optimization, honey bees optimization, moth amalgamated elephant herding optimization, fitness sorted moth search algorithm, improved tunicate swarm optimization, lion algorithm, deer hunting optimization, various rider optimization schemes, grey wolf optimization, cuckoo search, and finally a bat algorithm. Such a zoo of names immediately raises suspicion, and for a good reason.” – Maarten van Kampen
For Better Science