Elektrine
Log in Register

#peerreview

6 posts · Last used 16d

Daniele de Rigo @dderigo@hostux.social
· 3w ago
Replying to
18/ The commentary cites another study (randomized controlled trial involving #SoftwareEngineers, still preprint ahead of #PeerReview) [6] to "investigate whether skills are being lost in the field of #ComputerScience" [4] This early study appears to suggest how #genAI-assisted "participants did particularly poorly on questions that required them to diagnose #errors in the code, which suggests that they had failed to learn the concepts behind the #code that they had just produced"
2
6
2
0
Daniele de Rigo @dderigo@hostux.social
· 3w ago
Replying to

9/ As anecdotal evidence, after recent exchanges with somewhat exasperated colleagues (note: the fields I'm referring to here are not #mathematics, but mainly #ComputationalModelling, e.g. in #EarthSciences, #ecology, #ClimateChange, ... or just simply their #PeerReview !)

  • There seems to be a growing prevalence of those who claim that it is obsolete (usual "left-behind syndrome"?) to do scientific/technical work without depending more and more on #generativeAI (allegedly without upper limits)
2
15
3
0
petersuber @petersuber@fediscience.org
· 2mo ago
New study: "We show…that research assessment is driven more by differences between evaluators than by difference in the evaluated research." https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09783 #Academia #Assessment #PeerReview #ScholComm #Universities
Judges matter more than papers in post-publication research assessment
arXiv.org

Judges matter more than papers in post-publication research assessment

Research assessment relies on expert evaluations, yet human judgement is noisy, and it is unclear whether differences in assessment arise primarily from differences in genuine research quality or from unwanted differences between evaluators. While numerous studies highlight disagreement and biases in research assessment, they have not quantified judge-related noise relative to variation in the evaluated works. Here we show, in a large post-publication peer review database, that research assessme

9
0
11
0
Björn Brembs @brembs@mastodon.social
· 2mo ago
"If we still believe that science is a vocation grounded in argument, curiosity and care, we can’t delegate judgement to machines" https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/ai-not-peer-so-it-cant-do-peer-review #ai #peerreview #academia
Times Higher Education (THE)

AI is not a peer, so it can’t do peer review

If we still believe that science is a vocation grounded in argument, curiosity and care, we can’t delegate judgement to machines, says Akhil Bhardwaj

38
1
50
0
You've seen all posts