@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 10 days agoElseviermander.xyzimagemessage-square144fedilinkarrow-up1942arrow-down111
arrow-up1931arrow-down1imageElseviermander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 10 days agomessage-square144fedilink
minus-squareRBGlinkfedilinkEnglish34•10 days agoFully agree but I can tell you about point 1 that there enough gullible scientists in the world that see nothing wrong with the current system. They will gadly pick up free review when Nature comes knocking, since its “such an honour” for such a reputable paper.
minus-square@FeathercrownlinkEnglish22•10 days agoSuch a reputable paper that’s no doubt accepted dozens of ChatGPT papers by now. Wow, how prestigious!
Fully agree but I can tell you about point 1 that there enough gullible scientists in the world that see nothing wrong with the current system.
They will gadly pick up free review when Nature comes knocking, since its “such an honour” for such a reputable paper.
Such a reputable paper that’s no doubt accepted dozens of ChatGPT papers by now. Wow, how prestigious!