←back to thread

MIT asks arXiv to withdraw preprint of paper on AI and scientific discovery

(economics.mit.edu)
386 points carabiner | 1 comments | 16 May 25 15:09 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hooloovoo_zoo ◴[16 May 25 19:58 UTC] No.44009253[source]▶
I don't think arXiv should take it down even if it is fraud. ArXiv is more about being a permanent store than a quality judge.
replies(2): >>44009323 #>>44010115 #
modzu ◴[16 May 25 20:05 UTC] No.44009323[source]▶
store of what? fake scientific articles or genuine preprints? if the latter clean this crap up
replies(3): >>44009540 #>>44009578 #>>44015628 #
hooloovoo_zoo ◴[16 May 25 20:35 UTC] No.44009578[source]▶
Judging quality/fraud is the role of a journal/conference, not arXiv. If a paper gets rejected does it come off arXiv? No. If a paper is never submitted does it come off? No. If a paper is retracted, does it come off? No. ArXiv should avoid making as many subjective determinations as possible.
replies(1): >>44009785 #
andy99 ◴[16 May 25 20:59 UTC] No.44009785{3}[source]▶
I agree with this, it's actually a good reminder not to trust a preprint server. Arxiv already has an inappropriate air of validity, moderation will only make it worse.

(Incidentally, I don't think misplaced trust in preprints is much of an academic issue, people that are experts in their field can easily judge quality for themselves. It's laypeople taking them at face value that's the problem.)

replies(1): >>44013425 #
1. griffzhowl ◴[17 May 25 11:02 UTC] No.44013425{4}[source]▶
> people that are experts in their field can easily judge quality for themselves.

This case seems a counterexample though. Top economists Acemoglu and Autour went on record approving of the paper. The main flaws were only obvious to material scientists, and since this was submitted to an economics journal it's possible that if it hadn't been so hyped it would have slipped through peer review by economists