AI slop in peer-reviewed journals

[UnijunctionTransistor]

This looks like a mid 1970s-era design.
What could be novel about it?

[eutectique]

This article might serve completely different purpose, far from electronics, -- poison a sciency publication with deliberate hallucinations and see the spread of ripples (citations).

Or poison as much training material as possible, to speed the AI bubble bursting up.

[jnk0le]

Got response from Marco.
They "are already in contact with the editor to resolve the issue."

No more info so far.

[BadeBhaiya]

So they took your $20, but they didn't give you the DOI of that paper?
Sounds like a scam, did they at least publish that paper anywhere?

No they did publish the paper, I have the DOI right here with me. They even took the time to email us about making some changes to the format and confirming if it was the final version. Of course they had no interest in the contents of the paper, only in the formatting of the Microsoft Word file

[5U4GB]

Photos were taken somewhere in india, according to the wall plugs.

Galgotias University perhaps?

[jnk0le]

Slop got first citation:
https://www.proquest.com/openview/4a2651d2d387f724a12bf2ee4eb5030c

edit:
First listed author was getting funding on previous articles.

https://ksrmce.ac.in/AQAR/2023-24/Criterion3/3.1.2/4.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-58820-2

[BadeBhaiya]

What a lovely circlejerk ecosystem

No wonder academicians don't want jobs, can you show up to your job with AI slop and face no accountability and STILL progress your career? No? Thought so.

[Siwastaja]

"AI slop" was first used in academic world, long before "AI" or "slop" even existed as terms. Then it was just called "machine-generated". Like, I'm talking about 10 years ago or something! And it was much MUCH worse than the current LLM/ChatGPT crap, to the point it didn't trick anyone, everyone fully understood what it is, and yet it existed.

It's because academy is largely a system that exists to control money flows. Some pretending needs to happen, fake artifacts need to be created in the process. Humans obviously want to automate this work, just like sending Viagra emails was automated over 25 years ago.

There are some 50000 universities in the world. Probably 500 of them are actually very good, or somethig. That's 1%. Next 9% probably try to do their best. Rest are basically just scams.

[jnk0le]

ok, grants are listed in the middle 

Funding

The authors appreciate the support provided by the National Research and Development Agency (ANID)through the FONDECYT Regular grant number 1220556 and SERC Chile FONDAP 1523A0006. Additional funding was provided by the Research Project PINV01-743 and PINV01-272 of the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) and the UK-FRANCE Science Innovation and Technology Researcher Mobility Scheme UUK Award #1102. Furthermore, the authors acknowledge the International Research Collaboration Fund 2024-2025 from the University of Nottingham A7C200 and Programa de Redução de Assimetrias na Pós-Graduação (PRAPG) – Edital nº 14/2023 - DRI - CAPES. ID Number: 046.821.818-15. In addition, the authors also thank ENNOBLE - zEro emission raNge exteNder fOr hyBrid propuLsion systEm, Application number: 10062777 - UK Research and Innovation.

That's 8 separate funding sources (some repeat in different papers)
Can't find exact monetary values that have been extracted, though.

[SiliconWizard]

What a lovely circlejerk ecosystem

No wonder academicians don't want jobs, can you show up to your job with AI slop and face no accountability and STILL progress your career? No? Thought so.

You mean jobs out of academia, I suppose?

[tooki]

"AI slop" was first used in academic world, long before "AI" or "slop" even existed as terms. Then it was just called "machine-generated". Like, I'm talking about 10 years ago or something! And it was much MUCH worse than the current LLM/ChatGPT crap, to the point it didn't trick anyone, everyone fully understood what it is, and yet it existed.

It's because academy is largely a system that exists to control money flows. Some pretending needs to happen, fake artifacts need to be created in the process. Humans obviously want to automate this work, just like sending Viagra emails was automated over 25 years ago.

There are some 50000 universities in the world. Probably 500 of them are actually very good, or somethig. That's 1%. Next 9% probably try to do their best. Rest are basically just scams.

Not all universities are research universities. That doesn’t mean they’re scams.

[Siwastaja]

"AI slop" was first used in academic world, long before "AI" or "slop" even existed as terms. Then it was just called "machine-generated". Like, I'm talking about 10 years ago or something! And it was much MUCH worse than the current LLM/ChatGPT crap, to the point it didn't trick anyone, everyone fully understood what it is, and yet it existed.

It's because academy is largely a system that exists to control money flows. Some pretending needs to happen, fake artifacts need to be created in the process. Humans obviously want to automate this work, just like sending Viagra emails was automated over 25 years ago.

There are some 50000 universities in the world. Probably 500 of them are actually very good, or somethig. That's 1%. Next 9% probably try to do their best. Rest are basically just scams.

Not all universities are research universities. That doesn’t mean they’re scams.

Oh, absolutely. Non-research universities most definitely do not push scam research papers.

And becoming a scam is slippery slope. I attended university (and authored research papers) in relatively decent university. Yet research quality was not always top-notch. When you get paid per paper, it's appealing to publish more. And when it becomes a question of your existence...

[tooki]

Well, there’s a reason why so many people in academia are critical of the “publish or perish” system that has emerged. I still don’t think it’s fair to call universities “scams”, though.

[Siwastaja]

Well, there’s a reason why so many people in academia are critical of the “publish or perish” system that has emerged. I still don’t think it’s fair to call universities “scams”, though.

Very actual scam universities which only exist to generate scam papers in scam journals and scam symposiums which are not even actually held, are a real thing. Of course not 99% or even 90% as you could read my earlier post. Then there is another slippery slope of universities which are pretty near to being such scams, even if they do not really want to be that way.

[jnk0le]

retracted: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-55808-y

Marco Rivera, Patrick Wheeler, and Jakson Bonaldo agree with the retraction and its wording. T. Mariprasath did not explicitly state if they agree or disagree with this retraction. Sujata Shivashimpiger, M. Pala Prasad Reddy, Shaik Muqthiar Ali, and Venkatesh Peruthambi did not respond to the correspondence from the Editors about this retraction.

In the meantime, it got another citation here: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Black-hole-optimization-based-MPPT-for-a-high-gain-Varanasi-Rao/0b3328c925637cc1865f7037a9dc01374957f037
(already purged)