1
47
rules discussion (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by laverabe@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world

I've seen a few complaints over the past few weeks about there being a lot of psuedoscience, and there has been a fair amount of reports.

I figured it would be a good idea to update the rules on the sidebar to clearly lay out what is and isn't allowed.

I think a tagging system might help to keep down on the spam and elevate real scientific sources. These are just a draft and more rules could be added in the future if they are needed.

Current draft (work in progress, add suggestions in comments):


A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

Submission Rules:

  1. All posts must be flagged with an appropriate tag and must be scientific in nature. All posts not following these guidelines will be removed.
  2. All posts must be peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal, unless flagged as news or discussion. No pseudoscience.
  3. No self-promotion, blogspam, videos, or memes. See list of unapproved sources below.

Comment Rules:

  1. Civility to other users, be kind.
  2. See rule #1.
  3. Please stay on the original topic in the post. New topics should be referred to a new post/discussion thread.
  4. See rule #1 again. Personal attacks, trolling, or aggression to other users will result in a ban.
  5. Report incivility, trolling, or otherwise bad actors. We are human so we only see what is reported.

Flag Options

  1. [Peer reviewed]
  2. [News]
  3. [Discussion]

List of potential predatory journals & publishers (do not post from these sources)

List of unapproved sources:

  • Psypost
  • Sciencealert
  • (any other popsci site that uses titles generally regarded as clickbait)

Original draft:

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

Submission Rules:

  1. All posts must be flagged with an appropriate tag and must be scientific in nature. All posts not following these guidelines will be removed.
  2. All posts must be peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal, unless flagged as news or discussion. No pseudoscience.
  3. No self-promotion, blogspam, videos, or memes.

Comment Rules:

  1. Civility to other users, be kind.
  2. See rule #1.
  3. Please stay on the original topic in the post. New topics should be referred to a new post/discussion thread.
  4. See rule #1 again. Personal attacks, trolling, or aggression to other users will result in a ban.
  5. Report incivility, trolling, or otherwise bad actors. We are human so we only see what is reported.

Flag Options

  1. [Peer reviewed]
  2. [News]
  3. [Discussion]

List of potential predatory journals & publishers (do not post from these sources)


I'm not on 24/7 but I'll try to update these when I get a chance.

2
24

there are multiple groundbreaking things in here, absolutely amazing article and extremely inspiring news.

3
10
submitted 1 day ago by misk@sopuli.xyz to c/science@lemmy.world
4
52
5
40
6
10
7
-3
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by zlatiah@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world

This is a news/discussion on Nature about the influences of ChatGPT on academia. Some quotes below:

In the two years since ChatGPT was released to the public, researchers have been using it to polish their academic writing, review the scientific literature and write code to analyse data. Although some think that the chatbot, which debuted widely on 30 November 2022, is making scientists more productive, others worry that it is facilitating plagiarism, introducing inaccuracies into research articles and gobbling up large amounts of energy.

60,000: the minimum number of scholarly papers published in 2023 that are estimated to have been written with the assistance of a large language model (LLM). This is slightly more than 1% of all articles in the Dimensions database of academic publications surveyed by the research team.

10%: the minimum percentage of research papers published by members of the biomedical science community in the first half of 2024 estimated to have had their abstracts written with the help of an LLM. Another study estimated the percentage to be higher — 17.5% — for the computer science community in February.

6.5–16.9%: the percentage of peer reviews submitted to a selection of top AI conferences in 2023 and 2024 that are estimated to have been substantially generated by LLMs. These reviews assess research papers or presentations proposed for the meetings.

One big question that researchers have been pursuing in the past year is whether ChatGPT can go beyond the role of a virtual assistant and become an AI scientist.

Also see FutureHouse's PaperQA2, this work from Lu et al., and this work from Boiko et al.. All are attempts at creating an "AI scientist".

8
116
9
47

I don't have a background in science, I learned of the 2021 study as a footnote in a book I'm reading.

I'm curious to see what more attention this will get over the coming years.

10
0
submitted 2 days ago by m3t00@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world

11
80
submitted 5 days ago by m3t00@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
12
78
submitted 6 days ago by misk@sopuli.xyz to c/science@lemmy.world
13
70
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world

Space weather experts say auroras could be visible from 10 p.m. EST Thursday to 1 a.m. Friday EST, though it’s difficult to pin down an exact window. Updated forecasts may be available as the event draws closer on NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center website or an aurora forecasting app.

14
71
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by W4nd3r3r@lemmy.ml to c/science@lemmy.world

The results of a recent study suggest that, if there is no deficit of the hormone, supplements are unlikely to improve a man’s libido

15
15
16
-29
17
26
submitted 1 week ago by mox@lemmy.sdf.org to c/science@lemmy.world
18
8
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
19
10
Fosdem 2025 Conference in Brussels (research-fosdem.github.io)

Dear colleagues,

Please find attached the call for proposals to our Open Science Devroom.

A conference track about all things "open source in research context" at the Free and Open Source Development European Meeting on 1st and 2nd of February 2025 at the Université Libre de Bruxelles.

We are looking forward to your proposals!

See you there, The Open Research Devroom managers

20
78
submitted 1 week ago by sm1dger@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
21
28

Of course killing the Younglings after Mouse Order 66 was carried out wasn't a big deal since the rodent mothers do that all the time anyway.

22
81
23
63
24
357
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/science@lemmy.world
25
395

In this study, the scientists simulated the process of spaced learning by examining two types of non-brain human cells — one from nerve tissue and one from kidney tissue — in a laboratory setting.

These cells were exposed to varying patterns of chemical signals, akin to the exposure of brain cells to neurotransmitter patterns when we learn new information.

The intriguing part? These non-brain cells also switched on a “memory gene” – the same gene that brain cells activate when they detect information patterns and reorganize their connections to form memories.

view more: next ›

science

14913 readers
65 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS