Welcome to my four posts about the use of #AI in academic publishing.
This is part one, also known as the fuck around part.
Here is an early 2023 YouTube video from #Hindawi, advertising "writefull" an ai-based language tool on their platform to help authors rework their manuscripts, thus "creating time to focus on what you are trying to say, instead of how to say it".
(1/4)
In 2023—the year of #chatgpt—retracions in scientific publishing skyrocketed. Wiley decided to bury the prominently affected Hindawi brand.
This is part two, the find out part.
"… more than 8,000 retracted papers had been published … by Hindawi, … figures that have now forced the company to act. “We will be sunsetting the Hindawi brand and have begun to fully integrate the 200-plus Hindawi journals into Wiley’s portfolio,” a Wiley spokesperson told the Observer."
(2/4)
Part three and four are called "just my commentary".
"Correlation or causation?" you may ask yourself. First, congratulations, you grasped a concept machine learning cannot replicate.
These are just indicators for a broken system. The incentives are wrong, as long as resaerchers feel pressured to publish. Competing publishers react to a damand. They can not afford to ignore a technological trend within the boundaries of capitalism.
(3/4)
#Hindawi follows a full #OpenAccess publishing model since 2007. They may just look bad in comparison because everyone actually *can* look at their stuff (no log-in required, OAI-PMH, web scraping is possible, there's a freely downloadable JATS-based XML corpus).
So, everyone, brace for the 2024 retraction crisis.
(4/4)
There is a thing I would call "science bro YouTube". Dudes coaching other dudes in academia how to "ethically" game the academic publishing system by "ethically" using AI.
If you stumble across one, look a the view count.
(5/4)
Frottier