@cliffle I'm not sure if it was that paper but I saw one this week where the very first sentence started something like "Certainly, an argument for ... could start..." in that LLM chatbot style.

The "authors" hadn't even read it, apparently!

@cliffle I clicked the link and was immediately asked to prove that I am not a robot.

A world where robots publish medical papers that medical regulators cannot read because the computer thinks we are robots. Truly we live in amazing times.

@cliffle

LOL, whut? Don't they have editors???

@cliffle i thought they didn't even provide quality checks as they pass the burden of peer review on to others

literally the world's most expensive way to host a pdf while reducing scientific access and advancement

@cliffle @Doug_Bostrom

😂 🪑 🍁

Whoops.

Fell out of my chair while chortling.

No.

Part of the reason that pay to play publishers have been so successful— is that their income making tactics are pretty much indistinguishable from “real” publishers.

And don’t get me started on how editors are not serving the role they were designed and or paid to do.

@cliffle

Remarkable. I was about to say "remarkable but not surprising", but actually, this is surprising. Whatever is wrong with Elsevier, this is on a different level.

@cliffle they did it again in another paper too, and it happened quite literally in the introduction! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468023024002402

“Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic:Lithium-metal batteries are promising candidates for high-energy-density rechargeable batteries due to their low electrode potentials and high theoretical capacities…”

@cliffle Why shouldn't they do it like this when they once rented a whole bunch of journals to big pharma as marketing platform?

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/merck-elsevier-and-fakery