[HN Gopher] Chemist Rafael Luque suspended without pay for thirt...
___________________________________________________________________
Chemist Rafael Luque suspended without pay for thirteen years
Author : belter
Score : 80 points
Date : 2023-04-03 13:33 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (english.elpais.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (english.elpais.com)
| tripdout wrote:
| Is the problem that it was Saudia Arabia / Russia, or would this
| have happened regardless of country due to his contract with the
| Spanish university?
|
| If it's the former, it really doesn't seem like a justified
| reaction.
| dannykwells wrote:
| "Without me, the University of Cordoba is going to drop 300
| places [in the Shanghai ranking]. They have shot themselves in
| the foot," said Luque, who attributed his suspension to "pure
| envy."
|
| Seems like they really lost a real gem with this one /s
| extasia wrote:
| That quote stuck out to me to as from somebody who only cared
| about gaming metrics rather than contributing to human
| knowledge
| sdfghswe wrote:
| Anyone who's been in the academia will recognize that someone
| who publishes 100 papers a year or whatever it is is just
| gaming metrics.
| greenthrow wrote:
| Doesn't really matter how prolific he is if he violated his
| employment contract. He should have negotiated a new contract
| before working for Saudi Arabia and Russia. Seems like a non-
| story.
| xtracto wrote:
| Thanks, this is a trivial thing IMHO. Worker violates working
| agreement, news at 11. All the other fluff is just yellow
| journalism. He uses GPt? Yawn... he publishes mainly as co-
| author? That's completely normal in academia, particularly for
| high ranking professors. Wait until people discover that in
| several places in Germany, Proffesors delegate most of the PhD
| supervising tasks to lowly post-docs.
|
| It's just layman peeking at the Academia world and getting mad
| at a cloud.
| emaginniss wrote:
| It's normal for academics to publish a study every 37 hours?
| grumple wrote:
| > They have a grudge against me because I am a very prolific
| scientist and a lot of people adore me, because they know my
| worth. They are envious and mediocre people
|
| This guy is extremely egotistical. And he's publishing papers
| with people he doesn't know. The article implies most of these
| papers are of low quality... I doubt he contributed in any way to
| many other than by adding his name. That's fairly common in
| academia even in normal times. But in these cases it's unlikely
| that he collaborated in any way with the authors and can't verify
| the content of the papers.
| sgift wrote:
| Yeah, he even admits that he broke rules but obviously it's all
| due to this genius that they are mad at him. If he would be
| less of a 'genius' the university would have accepted it? What
| a megalomaniac.
|
| > Luque acknowledges that he skipped the established procedures
| to collaborate with other institutions, but attributes the
| sanction to envy and a lack of understanding.
| belter wrote:
| "...The chemist admitted that since December, he has been using
| the artificial intelligence program ChatGPT to "polish" his
| texts. "These months have been quite productive, because there
| are articles that used to require two or three days and now I do
| them in one day," he said..." WTF!
| iamerroragent wrote:
| Yeah WTF. This is just going to become standard practice within
| years if not months.
|
| Perfect application for this AI tool imo.
| lisasays wrote:
| _Perfect application for this AI tool imo._
|
| Yup - credential whoring and research fraud. It's the new
| frontier.
| iamerroragent wrote:
| That was something Luque was being accused of before using
| AI though.
|
| Using a machine to work more efficiently is not bad.
| igetspam wrote:
| Why the "WTF!"?
|
| He wasn't sanctioned for using an LLM to speed up his work, so
| seeing this as the first reply could confuse some people.
|
| I've been doing this for months now too. I can get docs done in
| a day that used to take a couple weeks because of constant
| interruptions.
| belter wrote:
| That is not the point...It's the fact his supposed valuable
| research, ( he is getting published after all!) is of so
| flimsy quality, that a LLM model can be a productivity
| improvement! That is the reason of the WTF.
|
| Do you think Tesla or Einstein with a LLM model, would spit
| out 5 new discoveries per week instead of one every decade?
| adastra22 wrote:
| Have you tried using a LLM? I don't think they are as dumb
| as you are making out. I've used GitHub Copilot to help
| with some lab reports this last semester, and it really
| sped things up. It can auto fill complicated LaTeX syntax
| and such so that I don't have to look it up. The meat of
| the paper is mine, and I have to correct it a lot, but it
| was definitely useful.
| twelve40 wrote:
| not a bit disturbed by whatever language tools he needs to
| use but a paper every day (or every week) is _insane_. No
| matter what you do, it can 't be sustainable for years as
| he claims.
| igetspam wrote:
| And that is absolutely worthy of discussion but the use
| of tools is a distraction from the topic. I find it
| surprising that the author felt it was even worth
| bringing up in the article. It makes no argument for or
| against the subject of the article but definitely plants
| some weird seeds of distrust for certain types of people.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _is of so flimsy quality, that a LLM model can be a
| productivity improvement!_
|
| Who said the research was of flimsy quality?
|
| Who said that the discoveries (as opposed to the BS padding
| journals require) was what LLM was used for?
|
| They might or might not be. But not because he used an LLM
| to "polish them".
| belter wrote:
| Has been publishing sometimes every 5 days, it seems
| mostly, by being listed as co-author. I like my genius
| with some effort and sweat. Even Terence Tao talks about
| his challenges...
|
| https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4190-1916
| shadowgovt wrote:
| What is the nature of the space he's working in?
|
| Something like physics, you can have a gap of months or
| years between a new theoretical breakthrough or the
| completion of a new machine giving you new raw data to
| churn through.
|
| ... but chemistry is something (no offense to chemists)
| you can do to the dirt outside your house, and _every
| novel molecular arrangement_ can be paper-worthy.
| belter wrote:
| Let's not go that way... - https://xkcd.com/435/
| shadowgovt wrote:
| This isn't indicative of the quality of his work; it's
| indicative that the standardized form of the research paper
| has so much low-information boilerplate that it's semi-
| automatable. If anything, I applaud attempts to automate it
| (only slightly less than I applaud attempts to do away with
| it via a new structure for these papers).
|
| Complaining about this is like complaining about the fact
| that people use IDEs to manage the imports in their Java
| class files. Ideally, you'd stop using a crap language that
| makes you wrap three lines of actual implementation in 50
| lines of imports, declarations, and redundant-to-the-code
| comments to make doxygen (and a linter) happy, but if the
| institutional model prevents that... By all means use a
| good IDE to do half the work for you.
| greatpatton wrote:
| For a non native English speaker, LLMs are really useful to
| rewrite your texts in a more natural way.
| whythre wrote:
| Dude was publishing every 37 hours. He wasn't just using
| it to 'polish' his language skills, he was churning out
| absurdly low grade schlock with the aid of an AI and
| getting it rubber stamped by the broken journal cartel.
| dgellow wrote:
| He was "publishing" every 37h, it seems to be mostly by
| co-signing papers
| lesuorac wrote:
| I mean the guy was writing a paper every 2-3d without AI
| and got it down to 1d with AI. It seems completely
| reasonable to me that better tooling could get their time
| down 50% (try shoveling a driveway vs using a truck ...).
|
| If his was just (ab)using chatgpt to create the papers
| from thin air then it'd be pretty easy for somebody to
| show where the pre-chatgpt papers are and the post-
| chatgpt papers are by the drop in quality. However,
| nobody has been citing the content of his papers when
| they make the claims about quality so I doubt chatgpt has
| an impact on the quality of his papers.
| rscho wrote:
| Welcome to capitalistic science, where moar is always
| better. You know, 40y ago when you bought a tool made of
| stainless steel that would last for life, and now you get
| the same out of flimsy plastic? Same thing with science.
| coldtea wrote:
| Yeah, what? Millions will do the same, and thousands are
| already doing it...
| mithr wrote:
| Just to clarify to the casual observer, parent's quote is from
| a one-paragraph section about how Luque's been able to be
| particularly productive recently, rather than anything to do
| with his suspension:
|
| > The university has sanctioned Luque for working as a
| researcher at other centers, such as the King Saud University
| in Riyadh and the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia in
| Moscow, despite holding a full-time publicly funded contract
| with the Spanish institution.
| sgift wrote:
| Nice that you didn't quote the part directly after that: >
| Luque said he basically uses it to improve his written
| expression in English
|
| What's the problem here? That a non-native speaker now doesn't
| need as much time to write text in a foreign language?
| belter wrote:
| What your comment and others are missing is: The problem here
| is that the fluency in English, seems to be the main
| obstacle, to the speed at what he can publish novel research.
|
| Maybe if he would be a English, Oxford educated scholar,
| would not need ChatGPT. Could then maybe do a paper every 4
| to 8 hours?
| nequo wrote:
| As a non-chemist academic, it is fully beyond me how anyone
| churns out papers at a rate of one every three days. That
| is the rate he says he has even without relying on ChatGPT.
|
| Is there a lot of overlap in the contribution that each of
| his individual papers make? Or are a lot of these
| replication studies, carried out by different teams in
| parallel, with him being a co-author on each of them? I'd
| be curious to read an academic chemist about how this is
| possible.
| fock wrote:
| He seems to have kickstarted his citation count by
| reviews. This is sadly extremely common; a surprising
| amount of researchers nowadays don't have an actual
| discovery/novel experiment in their first 10 highest
| cited papers... He now still does those in reputable
| journals to relatively random, but en-vogue topics. Then
| he goes out and trades his name to less visible research
| (which is ok to do) to actual crap in 2nd to predatory
| tier journals in exchange for more citations (probably
| citing other works including him ;)).
|
| Generally possible everywhere, also done in the none-
| Google/Meta/... world of ML. Just look here: https://ieee
| xplore.ieee.org/xpl/conhome/9764877/proceeding - just a
| random collection of crap.
| stefan_ wrote:
| He has just taken the whole "metric becomes the goal"
| thing to its logical conclusion. If you are only valued
| by your citation count..
| incone123 wrote:
| Perhaps he could write in his native language and have a
| machine do the translation.
|
| I'm reminded of a story doing the rounds about 25 years ago
| regarding an engineering document which had been translated
| by a machine. The team saw a reference to a 'water sheep'
| which they worked out meant 'hydraulic ram'.
| otherme123 wrote:
| If your paper goes to a british reviewer, or to a lesser
| extent an USA one, you are guaranteed to have your english
| called out. We even hired external translators to polish the
| paper. Some (british) reviewers had returned the paper with
| "needs total rewrite, I can't understand the english", while
| the other says just "minor corrections" non language related.
|
| I'm going to use GPT from now on, zero doubt.
| t344344 wrote:
| [flagged]
| throwaway14356 wrote:
| Humans wont have to read the papers, might as wel run them though
| the llm to see what it makes from it. We could even require a
| machine readable benchmark for future compatibility.
| strangeloops85 wrote:
| He admitted to publishing a paper with authors he didn't know..
| and which external evidence suggests had authorship for sale.
| These people are a disaster for science..
| merek wrote:
| I'm not in academia, is the industry vigilant of researchers who
| try to game metrics, or is metric-gaming commonplace and largely
| overlooked? Does it depend on country?
| jjk166 wrote:
| "Suspended without pay for thirteen years" sounds an awful lot
| like "fired"
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Except without the actual firing. European employment laws (and
| university rules) may have something to do with it.
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| [flagged]
| coldtea wrote:
| Or you know, to just go where he would be appreciated, probably
| for a pay increase...
| rscho wrote:
| [flagged]
| lyaa wrote:
| In fairness, I don't think the lack of Nobel prizes is a
| valid criticism here. The average time from discovery to a
| Nobel is close to 30 years at the moment and the Saudis
| built their first major research university (KAUST) in 2009
| and their first university ever in 1961. Their economy
| started to grow after they got some control over their oil
| in 1972 so let's say a decade after that is when they could
| be expected to start spending to any significant degree on
| research. That only gives them roughly 40 years to get a
| Nobel which is not enough without systematic support from
| foreign governments and universities which was not there
| due to wars, politics, and some internal Saudi policies
| that limited their ability to attract experts and get
| access to the latest advanced technologies.
| fuzzbazz wrote:
| In chemistry? the same number as in his current country
| suddenclarity wrote:
| I get that he was fired for other reasons but his method is a
| plague and should be worrying for everyone. When I wrote my
| latest paper more than half of the published papers I found
| through research hubs were so subpar that I would've failed my
| students if they submitted it in one of the regular assignments.
| Anything can be published. Add some ChatGPT so it sounds
| convincing and the practice of citing your colleagues to up the
| stats and it will be near impossible to sort decent science from
| junk without spending all your time on reading papers instead of
| doing actual research.
| saulpw wrote:
| I'm also worried about this, but "impossible to sort decent
| science from junk without spending all your time on reading
| papers instead of doing actual research"--isn't spending all
| your time reading papers what "actual research" is? re-search?
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| Research is for discovering new things, not just reading old
| things.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Is both. Reading old things, sometimes published in several
| different languages is required to master a theme. And
| finding it first takes an awful lot of time
| Alifatisk wrote:
| "The prolific chemist, who has published a study every 37 hours
| this year..."
|
| I found this part quite impressive until I read the following
| part:
|
| "Luque is constantly publishing papers. Last year he authored
| some 110 articles. So far this year he has published 58. The
| chemist admitted that since December, he has been using the
| artificial intelligence program ChatGPT to "polish" his texts.
| "These months have been quite productive, because there are
| articles that used to require two or three days and now I do them
| in one day," he said."
|
| Even if this is unrelated to the actual story, I find it a tiny
| bit disturbing. Is this the new standard practice? Let some robot
| spew out paragraphs of text to convey the scientist research?
| trabant00 wrote:
| That sounds like gaming the system. I have a very hard time
| imagining somebody can produce quality work every 37 hours non-
| stop.
| btilly wrote:
| Well, work of SOME type of quality, perhaps.
|
| The most prolific mathematician in history, Paul Erdos,
| published about 1500 papers over about 60 years. That comes
| out to a little more than 2 a month.
|
| That's close to an upper bound on what should be possible
| without some form of cheating.
| oofabz wrote:
| Erdos took amphetamines, so he was cheating too.
| btilly wrote:
| He also co-authored most of his papers and offloaded a
| lot of the writing to others.
|
| But he really did play a significant role in getting the
| results in every one of his papers.
| nerdponx wrote:
| This person is already writing an article in 2-3 days. Is
| ChatGPT realy the problem, for reducing the time to 1 day?
| freedomben wrote:
| I think you have a good point, but you're probably getting
| downvoted because on first read it came off more as you were
| defending the use of chatgpt (rather than criticizing the
| absurdly fast output).
|
| Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you're pointing out the
| absurdity of publishing every 2 to 3 days and implying that
| it was already essentiallly garbage he was producing, and
| chatgpt was just polishing the garbage (which IMHO, as you
| stated, the garbage production is clearly the bigger problem,
| not the polishing).
| nerdponx wrote:
| > you're pointing out the absurdity of publishing every 2
| to 3 days and implying that it was already essentiallly
| garbage he was producing
|
| Yes, exactly.
| malka wrote:
| most papers are made of 90% of useless fluff, and 10% of meat.
| CodexArcana wrote:
| If the domain expert is there to audit the results, where is
| the issue?
| i_am_jl wrote:
| I can't tell whether this is a question from someone who
| didn't read the article, or whether this is the most meta
| comment I've ever read.
| belter wrote:
| It could be both at the same time :-)
| greenthrow wrote:
| You're assuming they are going to do as thorough of a job
| auditing as they'd do on their own writing. I doubt that's
| what will happen when the point of the AI is to spew content
| out faster.
| brigadier132 wrote:
| It depends on how he is using it. If he is using it to insert
| new content into his papers it is concerning. If he is using it
| to reword his papers but the content remains the same it's less
| concerning.
| KurtMueller wrote:
| | If he is using it to reword his papers but the content
| remains the same it's less concerning.
|
| How is that less concerning? Rewording conclusions or the
| abstract, even subtly, can change the meaning of those words
| and of those sections.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| I don't see how this would be much different from a non-
| native English speaker getting a colleague to help with the
| English phrasing of a paper (this is very, very common).
|
| As long as the original researcher reads what's been
| written, and agrees with it, and the output gives an
| accurate description of the procedure and results, there's
| no harm done that I can see.
|
| Edit: I mean in general, not necessarily in this specific
| case. This guy seems a little...questionable...for other
| reasons.
| simiones wrote:
| > I don't see how this would be much different from a
| non-native English speaker getting a colleague to help
| with the English phrasing of a paper (this is very, very
| common).
|
| It's as different as ChatGPT is from an English-speaking
| scientist colleague.
|
| For example, a colleague will probably ask if they're not
| sure which is the intended meaning of a phrase. ChatGPT
| will generate one of the possible meanings.
| em-bee wrote:
| so what? the author can still proofread it and decide if
| that was the right meaning.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| Right. That's the author's responsibility, whether he or
| she is using ChatGPT, a human colleague, an old-school
| tool like Grammarly or classic Google Translate, or even
| older-school tools like paper dictionaries.
|
| In all those cases, mistakes can be made and unintended
| meanings can creep in. The author has to check the
| output, definitely, but that doesn't mean those tools
| shouldn't be used at all.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| the author can "proofread" it as written in another
| language with which they're arguably unqualified to work
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| Okay, how is that different from them using a
| (whatever)->English dictionary?
| suddenclarity wrote:
| It seems to be more than that:
|
| > Magazinov mentioned that a non-existent "vegetative
| electron microscopy" appears in two studies by Luque
| published with Iranian colleagues.
| belter wrote:
| Well there are Electron Microscope studies of the
| vegetative Cellular Life, so that is not the knife he will
| fall on...
| cwmoore wrote:
| Is it unreasonable to surmise that vegetative electrons are
| very small, thus the microscopy?
| akiselev wrote:
| The decision to turn off life support for vegetative
| electrons was made at the first Solvay Conference in
| 1911, at which point they ceased to exist in our universe
| in a total wave function collapse. ChatGPT has apparently
| overfitted on late 19th century theoretical physics
| journals.
| antonvs wrote:
| But there's speculation that vegetative electrons may
| still exist in the brains of the people who have been
| peer reviewing these papers.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Prolificness aside, what has he actually done? Is he advancing
| chemistry or just co-signing dubious papers?
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Co-signing dubious papers
| colechristensen wrote:
| Seems like he was gaming the various academic ratings systems
| by getting lots of things published with his name on them.
| cornholio wrote:
| It speaks to the broken state of measuring scientific and
| academic output. It's 99% a charade, people churning out
| machine generated papers nobody reads but get quoted in an
| attempt to justify the inflated claims of other machine
| generated garbage papers, in a circular attempt to fudge the
| stats that decide the funding and promotion.
|
| The idea that someone can even read, edit and make co-author
| level contributions in papers aimed for a top-level journals,
| all in the span of 37 hours, is utterly ridiculous.
|
| It's basically the equivalent of SEO spamming the Page rank
| algorithm with crummy pages with many back-links and repeated
| search terms. The search optimized term here is the author's
| name.
| kevviiinn wrote:
| From my experience most researchers don't actually read most
| papers, we just don't have time. The figures are what tells
| the real story, not necessarily the interpretation of the
| authors.
| EpiMath wrote:
| I don't disagree with you, but this is a horribly sad
| comment. I worry that the text of papers often gives short
| shrift to nuance and subtlety that is necessary for
| reasonable interpretation.
| peterfirefly wrote:
| I once read a lot of medical papers -- probably a few
| hundreds. There was often no real connection between the
| reported data and the conclusion. Sometimes the
| conclusion was along the lines of "a weak relation
| between X and Y was found" but the data showed a strong
| relation. Sometimes it was the opposite. Sometimes the
| conclusion was that X was good but the data showed X was
| bad. Sometimes it was the opposite.
|
| It was almost as if many of the authors couldn't do the
| kind of math expected of high schoolers that apply to
| university to study science.
|
| My takeaway was 1) to deeply distrust doctors as
| scientists (and as people who could think) and 2) mostly
| ignore the text surrounding the tables and graphs and
| just go straight to the data.
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Physicians are definitely not scientists, at least the
| majority of MDs. MD is not a research degree, it's a
| memorization degree
| queuebert wrote:
| Modern academia incentivizes quantity over quality, and
| reviewers for all but the most prestigious journals don't
| have sufficient time or expertise to properly review
| submitted papers. So this does not surprise me.
| cwmoore wrote:
| Why maximize paperclips when terms like "vegetative electron
| microscopy" could be trending in the literature.
| DoctorOetker wrote:
| For those who didn't read the article, or for those who
| did, but didn't follow its link to the PubPeer thread
| containing the "vegetative electron microscopy"
| observation:
|
| https://pubpeer.com/publications/7C9F0CCD493B1129135A3A918B
| 0...
|
| Search the page for the term and you'll see the relevant
| comment.
|
| The term seems to stem from an OCR cluster-mishap, where a
| valid scientific document was once OCR'ed incorrectly. The
| page has 2 columns of text and the left column has a
| running sentence 'ending' with "vegetative" before
| continuing on the next line in the same column. But at the
| same height in the column on the right a sentence
| continues, visually starting with "electron microscopy".
|
| The term is entirely meaningless in the field.
|
| This isn't just "using a little ChatGPT to brush up my
| English" at all.
|
| Other comments point out that the contents of abstract and
| article don't even match, the abstract being about bacteria
| but the article contents about gene delivery...
|
| I don't need convincing that ML will have tremendous
| positive impact in math and science disciplines, it's
| obvious, but the way ML was used in this case is not a
| defensible usage.
| roundandround wrote:
| Yeah, from the article I get the sense that he is often
| agreeing to add his name to papers for network affect,
| perhaps even as the main author.. So his own criteria for
| what he writes may be factual, but seems a bit off topic
| for what a reader should expect on seeing his name.
| JTbane wrote:
| TBH I'm terrified of the double-whammy effect of researchers
| becoming less and less competent as AI takes the reins (a la
| Wall-E) and good science getting drowned out by crap.
| AraceliHarker wrote:
| If you read the whole article, that's not because Rafael Luque
| was using ChatGPT to churn out papers, but because he was
| lending his name to research papers done in Saudi Arabia and
| Chinese universities.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _that 's not because Rafael Luque was using ChatGPT to
| churn out papers, but because he was lending his name to
| research papers done in Saudi Arabia and Chinese
| universities_
|
| ...who were using even worse models to churn out papers about
| "vegetative electron microscopy."
| Alifatisk wrote:
| I am aware of that and did not state otherwise, I just had to
| point it out. I even said "even if this is unrelated to the
| story"...
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _I found this part quite impressive until I read the following
| part:_
|
| If that first stat didn't pin your bullshit detectors into the
| red, you need new bullshit detectors.
| belter wrote:
| Mostly is _publishing_ by being co-author:
| https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4190-1916
| marcosdumay wrote:
| I'll go one step further than the sibling. For every possible
| occupation, if chatGPT can improve your odds of success (except
| maybe for writing fiction, but I'd guess it's bad at this too),
| then there is something fundamentally wrong with that
| occupation.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| This is nonsense. You might as well say "if literacy can
| improve your odds of success, then there is something
| fundamentally wrong with that occupation".
| outside1234 wrote:
| I'm doing this too on a paragraph level. It is amazing how much
| better my writing is getting with a tutor.
|
| It is entirely unsurprising that a non-native writer would do
| this. It would be more surprising in five years that anyone is
| not doing this.
| geoelectric wrote:
| GPT is pretty reliable at taking an existing body of text that
| fits entirely in a prompt and doing something with it--reword,
| translate, answer questions about it, so forth. Even expanding
| an outline into written sentences usually works great as long
| as the outline has _all_ the detail.
|
| It's really only when you let it introduce "facts" based on its
| body of training that it'll start going off the rails. If he's
| just running text through without checking the final results,
| that's really not wise, but the LLM is unlikely to start
| introducing novel facts or changing figures in response to a
| conservative request based entirely on the prompt text.
|
| Using it as a writing aid the way he claims he is (not that I
| necessarily believe all his claims) is probably one of the more
| responsibles way to use GPT, honestly, because you have full
| opportunity and ability to vet the output. Hack together
| something that has all the right content, then make it readable
| with the AI engine the way you might with a human editor
| collaborating, while jointly making sure the editor doesn't
| change the actual facts of the content.
|
| Whether or not he could be hacking anything of value together
| every 37 hours is another story.
| n0tahacker wrote:
| I am not a scientist in this field and can not evaluate the
| quality of his studies. But if you let ChatGPT do the "non-
| scientific" work, this seems to be okay to me. Also, I think that
| with the time there will be better mechanisms for evaluating
| studies/scientists as generating spam will be easier. But
| nonetheless, I think these rankings don't fulfill a scientific
| need. A scientific discovery can be important, but that doesn't
| mean anyone recognizes that.
| alsetmusic wrote:
| > The university has sanctioned Luque for working as a researcher
| at other centers, such as the King Saud University in Riyadh and
| the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia in Moscow, despite
| holding a full-time publicly funded contract with the Spanish
| institution.
|
| ChatGPT is getting cited in comments, but this is the real lede.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| While concerning, this seems to be the least bad thing this guy
| does.
| kevviiinn wrote:
| So which is the most bad
| leoh wrote:
| Spammy papers
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| >"They have a grudge against me because I am a very prolific
| scientist and a lot of people adore me, because they know my
| worth. They are envious and mediocre people," he said. "I have
| never felt supported by the University of Cordoba, even though I
| put it on the Shanghai ranking. Being on the ranking is entirely
| due to me."
|
| He appears to have a very high opinion of himself.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Another for the list of recent scandals of scientists publishing
| faster than light
|
| Susana Gonzalez, lost an EU grant of 1.8 million euro in 2017:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14006
|
| The wistleblower that disclosed that there were problems with the
| data and found images manipulated was fired and unable to find
| other work in research. Maybe is unemployed still, dunno.
| Somebody saved a lot of money also.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-03 23:02 UTC)