this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
131 points (97.8% liked)

Not The Onion

15988 readers
1003 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It's unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.

all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] crazyCat@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago

The paper is full of other crappy AI images too, a hot mess.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Rodent BDE is a serious affliction and should not be treated as a comical joke.

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was published online Tuesday in the journal Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology.

Hmmmm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_Media#Controversies

I'm not really familiar with this journal, but it sounds like they've had low standards for quite a long time now. There are some interesting comments about them under the Ars article, as well.

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

In May 2015, Frontiers Media removed the entire editorial boards of Frontiers in Medicine and Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine after editors complained that Frontiers Media staff were "interfering with editorial decisions and violating core principles of medical publishing". In total 31 editors were removed.

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, they just recently showed that a huge amount of scientific articles are just that, gibberish. Nonsensical scientific mumbo-jumbo wrapped up within a thin veneer of credibility. Scientific authors will pay for these in order to strengthen their resume.

I kinda wonder why they don't just skip a step, and just put fake stuff directly on the resume, but hey, they're the scientists

[–] livus@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@jpreston2005 resumes are digital these days and you link to the DOI of your paper so recruiters and funders can check with one click.

[–] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

More fuel for the anti-science YouTubers. They're going to have a ball with this. Several balls. And a dick, too.

[–] nrezcm@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You mean dck right?

[–] moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

THEY PUT IT IN A PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE!?

edit: nvm the article is apparently low quality anyways