Assoc Prof of Methodology and Statistics at Maastricht University. Interests: meta-analysis, ESM/EMA, mixed-effects models, computational statistics, research software, R, FLOSS, GNU/Linux, chess, piano, lolcats. The views expressed are those of my cats.
Wolfgang Viechtbauer
Loading...
This should even apply to all journals from the same publisher. The publisher should also approach the university of the authors and demand disciplinary consequences. If these are not made, then the entire university should be banned.
It wastes the time of editors and reviewers, who are already under severe time pressure. Basically, this breaks the entire system. I do not know who the authors are. However, the journal does. IMHO, such behavior should lead to a lifetime ban from ever submitting an article to the journal again.
So the authors were either too lazy or incapable of reading the generated text to detect this inconsistency. When I realized what was going on, I was livid. I certainly see the usefulness of LLMs for certain tasks, but this is abhorrent.
I recently reviewed a paper for a top journals in statistics that was written front to back with a LLM. To make things worse, the conclusions drawn from the simulation study did not match what the results actually showed and instead just conformed to what the authors intended to show.
Speaking of crazy d values, this reminds me of this feature I was thinking about adding to the forest() function in metafor. #Rstats #MetaAnalysis
I asked ChatGPT to imagine what my ideal retirement will look like. This is what it came up with.
R-folks, is the RTMB package the go-to autodiff package in R now? Limitations? Fast? Alternatives?
#RStats #r4ds
