Scientists aghast at bizarre AI rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed article | It’s unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.::It’s unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    to have a mechanism by which to say "this was wrong. we fucked up.

    Yes. But then you do not delete anything. You ADD this statement and leave the original stuff untouched, so that everybody can see afterwards what has been going on.

    (Unless you want to become a politician)

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      funny, that’s exactly what a retraction is. you don’t destroy the original stuff, you just publish a statement that says “Hey, that stuff? it’s no good.” individual journals have their own policies, of course, but that’s the template from which reputable journals build their policies. so the problem you’re trying to fix simply doesn’t exist.