- Even the the damn twitter card for this Nature Scientific Reports is clearly AI Slop.
- "Runctitiononal features"? "Medical fymblal"? "1 Tol Line storee"? This gets worse the longer you look at it. But it's got to be good, because it was published in Nature Scientific Reports last week: www.nature.com/articles/s41... h/t @asa.tsbalans.se
- Springer-Nature statement “Whilst the details of peer review are confidential, we can confirm that the article underwent two rounds of review from two independent peer reviewers, supporting an accept decision.” How am I now expected to believe that two people looked at the paper twice and DGAF?
- What makes you think the human reviewers looked at it? I recently reviewed a review that should have been desk rejected (I actually said shame on you for sending this out in the comments to the editor). One of the three reviews was clearly generated with LLMs.
- I'm worried that there are some things slipping through (or soon to) as: LLM-generated manuscript, goes to editor using LLM to summarize, goes to reviewers using LLM to review, and not a single bit of the whole process is done by a human, is actual science, or is useful at all.Nov 28, 2025 16:08
