It’s Scientific Reports turn to be embarrassed for publishing obvious generative A.I. slop.
The nonsensical bicycle, the bizarre almost words, the woman’s legs going through whatever she is sitting on. Just a mess.
The good news is that this is apparently going to be retracted, and that word came pretty quickly. But it is a bit concerning that the news of this retraction came from a journalist’s newsletter on that a platform that a lot more people should leave.
There is now a pop-up that reads:
28 November 2025 Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the contents of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by editors. A further editorial response will follow the resolution of these issues.
Less than 10 days from publication to alerting people of a problem is practically lightning speed in academic publishing.
My experience has been that when one finds one problem, there may be more lurking. So I looked for other papers by the author. I found none.
I then checked the listed institution: Anhui Vocational College of Press and Publishing. This does appear to be a real institution in China. But as the name suggests, it seems to be centred on publishing, design, and politics. It is not at all clear why a faculty member would write a paper on autism.
As I was looking around in search results for any more information about this institution, I stumbled upon two retracted papers from another faculty member. There are other papers from other faculty out there that seem to be more what you would expect, and are presumably not retracted.
It’s just strange.
Working scientists have to get organized and push back against journals that are not stopping – or are even willingly using – generative A.I. slop.
Reference
Jiang S. 2025. Bridging the gap: explainable AI for autism diagnosis and parental support with TabPFNMix and SHAP. Scientific Reports 15: 40850. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-24662-9
No comments:
Post a Comment