@atthenius@fediscience.org
@atthenius@fediscience.org avatar

atthenius

@atthenius@fediscience.org

Allegra LeGrande
Personal Acct

Mom of 2kids in

Upstate Manhattan,
New York City who

Bikes to work

WestTXnative

Climate scientist @
NASA
Goddard Institute for Space Studies &
Center for Climate Systems Research,
Columbia University

Specializing in abrupt and extreme climate change of the past present and future.
tfr
Avatar alt-text: a good doggo
Header alt-text: picturesque tower at the end of a pedi-bike bridge to Manhattan

Este perfil es de un servidor federado y podría estar incompleto. Explorar más contenido en la instancia original.

atthenius, a random en
@atthenius@fediscience.org avatar

funding agencies say NO to using for

US’ Australia’s : 'NO’ to ChatGPT for peer-review

US' and Europe's mulling it over with working groups.

Concerns:
*Privacy/Piracy “the information becomes part of its training data. ” (why I don’t chatGPT though I really hate writing)
*Error ”AI-written reviews will be error-prone"
*Bias ”against non-mainstream views”
*Boring "lack … creativity “

Humans set the bar high
https://www.science.org/content/article/science-funding-agencies-say-no-using-ai-peer-review

atthenius,
@atthenius@fediscience.org avatar

@Lennvor In the article its more like someone asked to do peer review for a proposal. Depending on your familiarity with the topic, that can take half a day or so… but someone noted with ChatGPT, they could get it done quick (my estimate, half an HOUR).
Peer review for proposals is generally compensated, but peer review of research papers is NOT (its community service, you review me, I review you for free so the publisher can cash in our labor).
There is thus an incentive to expedite reviews.

atthenius,
@atthenius@fediscience.org avatar

@Lennvor

Most proposals go through ‘panel review’ where ALL the proposals submitted to a call are reviewed by ~30 of their peers. Usually, there is one primary & 2-3 tertiary reviewers who evaluate the proposal before the panel review. During the review, each primary reviewer presents opinions on study feasibility, proposers qualifications, potential significance. Then the tertiary reviewers chime in.
At the end the whole panel grades each proposal & only the ‘best’ (<10%) get funded.

  • Todo
  • Suscrito
  • Moderado
  • Favoritos
  • •
  • random
  • noticiascr
  • CostaRica
  • Todos las revistas
    •