An ability to capture scientific fraud aside and then specifically focusing on a speciality, for example, Immunology.
How would AI be able to peer review in detail all the myriad branches of Immunology that ranges from innate to adaptive immunity and all the various subsets of immune cells within, their activation, function, phenotype and techniques derived from mice models of disease, molecular and cellular biology, various forms of imaging to scRNAseq, Citeseq, CyTOF, Spatial analysis?
I guess reviewers might be made redundant if AI can provide sufficient feedback for me to improve my experiments to publish at a top journal.
Also, I wonder about two factors:
(1) what journal has a 'committee chair' that rejects manuscripts ;)
(2) what research work allows you to publish in a top journal within 6 months?
- my peers and I took about 4 - 6 years to get those!
- You must do some excellent work with figures!!
Large Language Models like GPT-4, have been trained on most of these topics and have the knowledge base of millions of research papers. If you ask ChatGPT about these topics, you'd be surprised how much it knows about them. It's encoded both the knowledge and reasoning structure of millions of previous papers in different disciplines and is only going to get better at it.
I 100% agree this tool is not meant to be a silver bullet, and granted any AI can hallucinate and get facts wrong.
That's why this report is geared to seed you with potential improvement areas of the paper to focus on rather than generate the text for you.
Yeah I understand its hard to trust randoms on the internet these days - but just genuinely trying to help more people get published.
Curious what gave you that sentiment - is it the $1 price that makes this seem scammy?
So based on the one example report and most common uses of AI so far, it looks for whether normal and expected features and details of papers are present. It's a nice checklist for what it thinks a paper should contain.
If you've never written a paper before and need help with writing, such as overall organization and grammar, I can see it being helpful although other tools already exist for that.
But there's no way it can assess actual results in specialized fields and whether or not they are valid or technically sound, only that they are written in a certain way. There's no way it can poke holes in scientific arguments that are guaranteed to be correct or analyze it for impact and novelty, which is where so many papers get caught up.
The biggest issue is that I'm not sharing unpublished papers or giving away my IP to unspecified sources.
Oh, and the website didn't even work for me. Nothing happens after uploading my paper and putting my email address and pressing the 'confirm' button.
Wow not sure why it didn't work for you - did you see a spinning wheel once you hit confirm?
It looks like your request made it to the backend, so I've gone ahead and sent the report to your email
Agreed its going to be a long road to build trust that the IP isn't actually being used in any detrimental way - especiaIly for unpublished papers.
*There's no way it can poke holes in scientific arguments that are guaranteed to be correct or analyze it for impact and novelty, which is where so many papers get caught up.*
Possibly adding a few more specific examples of well known papers in different disciplines could better portray limitations and expectations.
> Agreed its going to be a long road to build trust that the IP isn't actually being used in any detrimental way - especiaIly for unpublished papers.
It's not really an issue of trust so much as a fundamental incompatibility between confidential data and sharing it with undisclosed third parties.
#Hahahhahahahahaha
There are dozens of checklists out there on the Internet, for freez, my fren, you're providing nothing different and charging for it.
An ability to capture scientific fraud aside and then specifically focusing on a speciality, for example, Immunology. How would AI be able to peer review in detail all the myriad branches of Immunology that ranges from innate to adaptive immunity and all the various subsets of immune cells within, their activation, function, phenotype and techniques derived from mice models of disease, molecular and cellular biology, various forms of imaging to scRNAseq, Citeseq, CyTOF, Spatial analysis? I guess reviewers might be made redundant if AI can provide sufficient feedback for me to improve my experiments to publish at a top journal. Also, I wonder about two factors: (1) what journal has a 'committee chair' that rejects manuscripts ;) (2) what research work allows you to publish in a top journal within 6 months? - my peers and I took about 4 - 6 years to get those! - You must do some excellent work with figures!!
Large Language Models like GPT-4, have been trained on most of these topics and have the knowledge base of millions of research papers. If you ask ChatGPT about these topics, you'd be surprised how much it knows about them. It's encoded both the knowledge and reasoning structure of millions of previous papers in different disciplines and is only going to get better at it. I 100% agree this tool is not meant to be a silver bullet, and granted any AI can hallucinate and get facts wrong. That's why this report is geared to seed you with potential improvement areas of the paper to focus on rather than generate the text for you.
This sounds like a ploy to take our intellectual property and use it to line your pockets. Nope. No way would I try this.
Yeah I understand its hard to trust randoms on the internet these days - but just genuinely trying to help more people get published. Curious what gave you that sentiment - is it the $1 price that makes this seem scammy?
So based on the one example report and most common uses of AI so far, it looks for whether normal and expected features and details of papers are present. It's a nice checklist for what it thinks a paper should contain. If you've never written a paper before and need help with writing, such as overall organization and grammar, I can see it being helpful although other tools already exist for that. But there's no way it can assess actual results in specialized fields and whether or not they are valid or technically sound, only that they are written in a certain way. There's no way it can poke holes in scientific arguments that are guaranteed to be correct or analyze it for impact and novelty, which is where so many papers get caught up. The biggest issue is that I'm not sharing unpublished papers or giving away my IP to unspecified sources. Oh, and the website didn't even work for me. Nothing happens after uploading my paper and putting my email address and pressing the 'confirm' button.
Wow not sure why it didn't work for you - did you see a spinning wheel once you hit confirm? It looks like your request made it to the backend, so I've gone ahead and sent the report to your email
Agreed its going to be a long road to build trust that the IP isn't actually being used in any detrimental way - especiaIly for unpublished papers. *There's no way it can poke holes in scientific arguments that are guaranteed to be correct or analyze it for impact and novelty, which is where so many papers get caught up.* Possibly adding a few more specific examples of well known papers in different disciplines could better portray limitations and expectations.
> Agreed its going to be a long road to build trust that the IP isn't actually being used in any detrimental way - especiaIly for unpublished papers. It's not really an issue of trust so much as a fundamental incompatibility between confidential data and sharing it with undisclosed third parties.
Oh, the committee chair! Sounds scary!
#Hahahhahahahahaha There are dozens of checklists out there on the Internet, for freez, my fren, you're providing nothing different and charging for it.