Two weeks since calling out some poor reviewer and editor practices at IOP Publishing, sadly this story continues.

I was looking through comments from #reviewer2, a different reviewer than the #reviewer1, who used #ChatGPT to suggest papers that should have been included, and which were fake, and which was not spotted by the editorial team.

#Reviewer2 seems to have also used a LLM model in their review. I wasn't certain until I got to the suggested references shown here. The hyperlinks look okay, but behind them are references to papers that are all Indian case studies and all with the same authors.

I fed to the review into ChatGPT, asking if there was hallmarks of LLM use. It seems that it is likely this review was.

Hmm, it seems there is more poor reviewer practice, and now, two unethical reviews out of three for one manuscript submission that were not spotted by the editor at Environmental Research Communications.

#academia #academicpublishing

Just received the first request to review a scientific paper.
Now I can almost feel like a 'real' scientist.

Now, the hard question: will I become #Reviewer1 or #Reviewer2
#academicChatter

So, #Reviewer1 praised the paper and asked for 2 minor changes that took me about 1 minute each to do. #Reviewer2 sat down, grabbed a cup of coffee, got comfortable, snapped their fingers, and asked for three ****ing pages of points to change, with topics and subtopics.

https://youtu.be/-VRBWLpYCPY

On this #WomenInScienceDay I want to celebrate all the inspiring women & those of my @cellcommlab

Also my #Reviewer1
"So my dear only few peops become astronauts & go to space"
"I see. But also from Chile🇨🇱"
"Actually no one yet"
"Yeees...Me!" 😍

(Figs: space's route & selfie)