Timeline for Published AI-generated nonsense math papers
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 22, 2022 at 10:54 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl♦ | A related question: mathoverflow.net/questions/267543. | |
| Oct 7, 2022 at 8:26 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | Shouldn't decent math journals that publish auto-generated gibberish trivially lose their adjective? | |
| Oct 6, 2022 at 20:42 | comment | added | user21820 | @NateEldredge: Always reminds me of Chopra and Derrida. | |
| Oct 6, 2022 at 14:10 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | For what it's worth, the paper you originally cited is certainly not generated by Mathgen, and doesn't look like any other text generation method I'm aware of. Whatever its flaws, I think it's clearly the work of a human author. | |
| Oct 6, 2022 at 7:22 | comment | added | Mateusz Kwaśnicki | @YCor: Thanks for your comment. What one should to with such papers is another interesting problem that I did not ask about here in order to keep the question focused. In this particular case, I think I will contact the author first. | |
| Oct 5, 2022 at 18:42 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Oct 5, 2022 at 15:43 | comment | added | YCor | (...) once the paper is published, the question is to detect such things. Here you detected it by chance. The MR and MZmath review both didn't detect anything (they omitted reviewing by quoting the summary). I believe this is a case where the whole editorial board should be informed of the issue, so as to react in appropriate way. | |
| Oct 5, 2022 at 15:41 | comment | added | YCor | Whatever it is, the example you initially provided was written by one of the 3 advisory editors of the journal. So it means it has no peer reviewing (or a phoney one), that the other editors didn't intervene, that the journal does not have the policy (of any decent journal) that editors shouldn't publish (blatant conflict of interest), and that the publisher didn't detect the issue (which is more understandable, since it's the editorial board's responsibility and competence to check that things are meaningful). (...) | |
| Oct 5, 2022 at 12:45 | history | edited | Mateusz Kwaśnicki | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 125 characters in body
|
| Oct 5, 2022 at 12:42 | comment | added | Mateusz Kwaśnicki | @LSpice: I was hoping this will give a clearer view of what I meant., but I guess you are right. I'll edit the question momentarily. | |
| Oct 5, 2022 at 12:39 | comment | added | LSpice | If you don't want to judge a particular paper, and steer conversation away from it, then why mention the particular paper? It seems to add little to the post except as a focus for a conversation you (I think correctly) don't want to have. | |
| Oct 5, 2022 at 12:29 | answer | added | Carlo Beenakker | timeline score: 29 | |
| Oct 5, 2022 at 12:27 | comment | added | Mateusz Kwaśnicki | @CarloBeenakker: Huh, interesting, thanks. But this was done in good will, I suppose. What I am concerned about is that people actually publish nonsense papers to game the system. | |
| Oct 5, 2022 at 12:15 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | you mention an example from 2012; here is another example: thatsmathematics.com/blog/archives/185 | |
| Oct 5, 2022 at 12:12 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 8, 2022 at 12:29 | |||||
| Oct 5, 2022 at 12:03 | comment | added | Piotr Hajlasz | Don't close this post. It is a good idea to improve our awareness about fake journals. | |
| Oct 5, 2022 at 11:50 | comment | added | YCor | Note that Walter Schempp is an advisory editor in the very journal (Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing ) here this paper has been published (springer.com/journal/12190/editors). | |
| Oct 5, 2022 at 11:50 | comment | added | Mateusz Kwaśnicki | @CarloBeenakker: I really want to avoid judgement of this particular paper and speculating about the author. I wrote this example only to indicate how I came up with the question (and I am still hesitating if I should have done it that way). I tried to see if anyone out there commented about Sokal-like papers in math journals, but I failed to find anything relevant, and so I though I would ask here. | |
| Oct 5, 2022 at 11:47 | history | edited | Gerald Edgar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Oct 5, 2022 at 11:04 | comment | added | Vladimir Dotsenko | It is perhaps worth remarking that the author seems to have been active for many decades, much longer than the AI has been around, and that one of the previous recent papers (ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5780078) comes with the following note on the publisher's website: "Notice of Retraction: After careful and considered review of the content of this paper by a duly constituted expert committee, this paper has been found to be in violation of IEEE's Publication Principles. We hereby retract the content of this paper. Reasonable effort should be made to remove references to this paper." | |
| Oct 5, 2022 at 10:44 | comment | added | Mateusz Kwaśnicki | Feel free to delete it if you think this belongs more to Academia.SE. Also, I guess this should be a community wiki question, but I cannot change this myself. | |
| Oct 5, 2022 at 10:41 | history | asked | Mateusz Kwaśnicki | CC BY-SA 4.0 |