Re: ChatGPT contributing to current science papers

  RonO wrote:

Peer review has it's flaws, but there is absolutely no doubt that it is the best means we have for giving research it's first pass evaluation.

It's irredeemably flawed. There needs to be transparency.
The biggest danger, and it does happen, is good science being killed
off by "Peer Review."
How to stop it?  Transparency. Let the rejected papers see the light
of day.

Peer review can be manipulated (Sternberg and Meyer), and groups of researchers have been exposed for recommending each others papers for peer review (some journals ask the authors to recommend possible peer reviewers in their field).

Less concerned about bad science making it through. Science is self
correcting. Science is repeatable or it isn't science. We can
reasonably expect garbage to self correct. But the opposite isn't
true. Good science that is kept from seeing the light of day is a
loss to the world.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5