6 ms·
To me, this is the real question. One of the purposes of the peer-review is to validate and verify results, which was clearly not done to a great extent here.
by jperoutek 3y ago
To me, this is the real question. One of the purposes of the peer-review is to validate and verify results, which was clearly not done to a great extent here. Perhaps the reviewers were also using some type of AI?
- favorited 3y agoThe reviewers are cited as part of the publication: Binsila B. Krishnan, National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology (ICAR), India Jingbo Dai, Northwestern Medicine, United States
- hermitcrab 3y agoFrom a quick Google, they appear to be real people.
- hermitcrab 3y agoPerhaps the reviewer was an AI. Which gives a new spin to 'peer review'.
- dexzod 3y agomakes sense, because the peer of AI can only be AI
- gs17 3y agoFrontiers has an explicit rule against that, although I doubt any reviewer would admit to it.