"I" may have just found a fundamental flaw in a "dense, high-prestige paper". Problem is, I don't have a clue what I did and how to verify any of this. I asked Gemini to perform a review of an interesting paper and it was skeptical and proposed a data analysis that should be performed.
a south park poster with a boy scout and the words what are you guys doing in there
media.tenor.comDec 15, 2025 at 12:59 AM
Is the scientific paper still a fraud?
How we write scientific papers does not reflect how we do science. Their formal structure infers a pre-ordained linear process rather than reflecting the messy creativity of research. This matters in the AI age because it masks the human in the process.
Gemini Notebook | AI Research Tool & Thinking Partner
Meet Gemini Notebook, the AI research tool and thinking partner that can analyze your sources, turn complexity into clarity and transform your content.
Google Gemini is getting better at identifying AI fakes
Hey Gemini, is this image AI?
Are Scientific Papers Bad?
Google Gemini deletes user’s code: ‘I have failed you completely and catastrophically’
Vibe coding gone wrong?
Eric Topol on Twitter / X
This is a FRAUDULENT paper, AI-generated. My name was used as an author and I had nothing to do with it, never saw it until today https://t.co/Ky60zJrMEZThe "Editors" Angelo Rossi Mori, David Mensah, and Zarnie Khadjesari should be reported. pic.twitter.com/2Z5CE8w4bn— Eric Topol (@EricTopol) April 22, 2026
The Journal of Scientific Integrity
by Laura Luebbert and Lior Pachter Background (by LL) Four years ago, during the first year of my PhD at Caltech, I participated in a journal club organized by the lab I was rotating in. I was assi…
Warning: Google Gemini SynthID AI Watermark Detector Appears To Mix Up Results In Same Chat -- Consistently Shows False Positives And Negatives Under Certain Conditions | Lead Stories
While investigating a video for a recent fact-check, Lead Stories encountered a bizarre issue with the SynthID AI detector in...
Don't Just Fact-Check Misinformation. First, Understand The Value It Holds. A Conversation w Researchers Michael Simeone & Kristy Roschke
Podcast Episode · Why Should I Trust You? · June 25 · 1h 7m
When Nature Calls: The Enshittification of Science and Its Enablers
Proof-of-work papers, policy laundering, and the collapse of self-correction
Sleuths flag ‘complete mismatch’ in data of BMJ stem cell study | Manoj Lalu
This is disappointing, but I’m not surprised. I was one of the reviewers for the initial version. You can see by my review (it’s all open) that I flagged primary outcome switching, a complete lack of any data on the cells themselves, and sample size inconsistencies in the protocol versus the report (and within the report). The data seemed impressive. Too good to be true I guess? I never saw the paper again in peer review after that initial review. The next notification I received was that the paper was accepted. Given BMJ’s commitment to open peer review and post-publication scrutiny (which I admire), I have no doubt we will hear about a formal editorial investigation soon.
This is a FRAUDULENT paper, AI-generated. My name was used as an author and I had nothing to do with it, never saw it until today e-pubmed.co.uk/journals/digital-health-imple… The "Editors" Angelo Rossi Mori, David Mensah, and Zarnie Khadjesari and this "Journal" should be reported.
This is a FRAUDULENT paper, AI-generated. My name was used as an author and I had nothing to do with it, never saw it until today e-pubmed.co.uk/journals/digital-health-imple… The "Editors" Angelo Rossi Mori, David Mensah, and Zarnie Khadjesari and this "Journal" should be reported.
