Science Memes

10923 readers

1948 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

That introduction... (mander.xyz)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468023024002402

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

On the side of authors, please, PLEASE do not use any AI tools when writing your articles.

It's actually very easy to get into Q3-Q4 with absolute crap, and let's just respect each other - not to mention keep your reputation :)

I know it's tedious and I don't like sitting at 4am writing articles, but yeah - it's important :D

That's not to say journals should REALLY do a better job.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

If you use it to just get started, but actually read it and have the expertise to fix mistakes and make it relevant, it's probably fine. Not necessarily because it's faster, but because some people just suck at getting started, and having nonsense to correct is easier to start correcting than turning whitespace into something.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You don't. AI will lead you astray.

Reading it and paraphrasing is ok if you get stuck. But if you use it before thinking, you won't get to thinking and write a piece of shit.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Its just an intro. Who cares if its shit? Just need words there that sound like the author wrote them because its expected in case someone accidentally reads it instead of skipping it as usual.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There'll always be someone new to the field who does actually have to read the intro. I read a stuff outside of my field all the time and I rely on the intro to not have to go find a review just to broadly understand a given paper.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Can't say the intro has ever been particularly useful, even if new to the field. If the methods aren't detailed enough to understand the methods, then you are going to have to look elsewhere. The intro isn't going to have that information. If you want a general summary of the field, a dedicated review is far far better than most scientists trying to fill space to get to the science.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

When a paper is far enough outside of my field I'm not going to be knowledgeable enough to critique methods. I'm not "new to the field" in the sense that I'm starting research in that area. Just thought the title was interesting/cool and I want to know a little bit more about the specifics. I don't actually care about the field enough to study it (if I did I'd look for a review). So I'm not trying to understand the field but the just the paper(broadly). Why is the thing they study important? How did they (supposedly) come to their hypothesis? Just how badly is a news report overreaching what the source states? Etc.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

Yeah, fair enough. Someone here in the thread already said they use LLMs to just outline what to write and how, and then start something along these lines from scratch