Submitted to ALIS Data Issue to mark SR Ranganathan’s Centenary.
Abstract
This abstract discusses four recent significant academic incidents. The first is regarding the retraction of an article suggesting Gunung Padang in Indonesia could be the world’s oldest pyramid. The second incident pertains to a paper retracted from Frontiers about an AI-created mouse with oversized genitals. The third case revolves around a Dean receiving backlash for publishing numerous papers with co-authors added without their consent. The last incident involves an author finding his paper rewritten using AI and subsequently published.
The situations mentioned above are identified not through formal pre-publication review, but through informal post-publication review. I came across a group of researchers who published their review on the pyramid directly on YouTube.
This evidence suggests that the term “peer-review” should be broadened in terms of its timing and its reviewers:
- With respect to the timing of the review process, it’s important to note that it should not be exclusively dependent on the traditional method of pre-publication evaluation. This traditional approach has demonstrated its vulnerabilities over time, as it has been known to approve papers that are, upon further review, questionable in their validity or scientific integrity. Therefore, it is crucial to consider alternative or additional methods to ensure a more thorough and rigorous review process.
- From a reviewer’s standpoint, assessments of a paper should not be limited to two or three experts assigned by a journal. A more comprehensive peer review process would involve general scientific experts and practitioners with extensive experience. The medium for commentary should not be confined to academic journals (in the form of commentary articles), but should expand to various science news outlets like The Conversation, and various social media platforms, including YouTube.
- Further development, science news outlets and social media also play an important role in pre-publication review when a journal requires manuscript discussion through discussion in public media.
While it’s important to acknowledge that this particular method isn’t universally applicable, and it’s certainly true that not all research can be thoroughly examined in this manner, its value cannot be understated. It is, in fact, extremely useful in specific contexts and scenarios. This method is particularly valuable for uncovering clear errors or instances of unethical behavior. These could be subtle inconsistencies that might initially go unnoticed or more blatant transgressions that blatantly defy ethical standards. In either case, this method serves as a powerful tool in maintaining the integrity of research efforts.
Contexts
Case 1: The paper by Dr. Danny Hilman Natawidjaja and his team claimed that the megalithic site of Gunung Padang was built as a pyramid around 25,000 years ago, based on ground penetration radar surveys and radiocarbon dating. However, the paper was retracted due to concerns raised by experts in geophysics, archaeology, and radiocarbon dating. The main error identified was the misapplication of radiocarbon dating to soil samples not associated with any man-made artifacts or features, leading to an incorrect interpretation of the site’s age.
Case 2: A scientific study published in Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, which used an AI image generator to create nonsensical images, was retracted after widespread criticism. The incident underscores the importance of rigorous peer review and responsible use of AI in scientific research.
Case 3: Kumba Digdowiseiso, a young professor and Dean at Universitas Nasional Indonesia, faced allegations of academic misconduct, including unauthorized inclusion of international academics as co-authors in his publications. The issue surfaced when lecturers from Universiti Malaysia Terengganu found their names listed as authors in Kumba’s work without their consent. This incident has sparked discussions about academic integrity in Indonesia, leading to calls for reforms in higher education policy and the need for academic freedom.
Case 4: Another potential misuse of AI technology is plagiarism, where someone could copy an entire manuscript and use AI to subtly rephrase it. This shows a blatant disregard for intellectual property rights and can dilute original work, contributing no new knowledge to society.