Learning, Sharing, Evolving, Creating - Enhancing the University Experience Together
HET Forum organizes discussions in English on a variety of topics with guests from around the world for local and international students in Taiwan to benefit and better both the regular and international programs at Taiwanese Universities.
Invite HET Forum for a unique and special learning experience for your students.
I think these researchers doing the wrong research are really unforgivable because there are lots of researches concerning about our life. If the research was done wrong, it may cause lots of people died. Take news, for example, there a scientist said that one of a medicine can adjust the pregnant woman’s body. In the beginning, people are really happy; they think that there has some ways to solve the problem. But after the woman ate it, the born baby was deformity. This news scared lots of women that they were afraid of buying the medicine that doctors didn’t agree. It shows that how important the researchers are.
And about the black Americans and white Americans, the researchers said that they didn’t want to admit that their research was wrong. It can cause a lot of problems. For example, if the black Americans want to change their color of their skin. But actually they don’t need to do it. It will cause that black Americans feel unfair about this thing.
The development of technology along with the advancement in science helps to bring in a revolution in many different fields such as electronic products, education, medical treatment and more. So, we can see many science studies published in magazines or journals. However, many issues exist and studies and their important findings can take two or more years in some cases to be published. Like teacher Daniel said that sometimes, if someone has a decent issue that fits the journals’ scope, the person may have higher opportunity to be accepted and his or her issue can be published. And if a researcher who is never heard of or a researcher who has not had some publications, they may be rejected from many journals. In my opinion, maybe it is because many people will believe the discoveries that is published. If there are mistakes or uncertain findings in the published issues, it may cause some problems. And I think the publishers do not want to take any risk of it. It takes time to discover something important, something useful, something new. So, they want to wait until the findings to be fully completed and will not cause any problem. Then, the issues can be published to people.
In the age of advanced science and technology, something new are discovered every day. Researchers can spend several years investigating a single research question, with the goal of making a contribution to the world. In addition, there are a lot of outstanding researchers make every effort to make their findings be published in journals to let people gain new knowledge easily. Unfortunately, making these discoveries be published is not easy. Sometimes, it may take two or more years for some important issues or studies. Only the works which are novel and interesting would be published in a scientific journal. Also, only after peer review can a work be considered part of the scientific literature. However, this is not a perfect process. Despite its widely used by most journals, the peer review process has also been criticized due to the slowness of the process and bias by publishers. For example, there have been many similar and insightful studies; however, publishers would only like to publish the issues discovered by those who are famous only because their opinions are influential. It might be difficult for the ordinary to get their findings be published. Unfortunately, it is a fact and it is hard to be changed.
Modern technology is changing with each passing day. New technologies that are becoming more and more understood have been developed. These technologies can help people’s lives, even academic applications. I feel that I need to add artificial intelligence. Peer review has its flaws. Even human beings are biased, lazy and selfish. And even if it is a science worker, sometimes mathematics will not be very good. So inevitably, some people want to remove the manual from peer review and replace it with artificial intelligence. Computers are known for their impartiality, tirelessness, and lack of self-identity, and they are well-informed in nature. Scientists are not just waiting for the secondary brain to participate in research peer review.
I think people are often struggling to catch up with the latest research papers. Also, they don’t have much time to read them all. This situation happens to peer review as well. Artificial Intelligent could help some auto parts of process of the peer review.
AI really improving the information collection and inspection. It takes much less time for AI to read the articles. In addition, it could find some mistakes as soon as they can. AI can help people write and check papers more efficiency than people do. Moreover, it would not have mistakes. So AI assist people to finish articles more accurately. As a result, it will be a bit sooner for people to publishing journals or papers. Also, AI has already collected big data. Using AI to do scientist and technology peer review could make the world better and easier. However, although AI can improve the peer review process, it will not entirely replace the human element at least for the foreseeable future. The reviewers are needed to evaluate and provide feedback on manuscripts and feed information to computers to help them improve.
Modern technology is becoming more and more developed, and more and more technologies are being developed. These technologies can replace human resources and make us have a more convenient life. It is an indispensable existence. I personally think that AI artificial intelligence can bring many benefits in the future life, but there are also many risks.because if a bad guy uses AI to improper use, it will bring great danger to human life, and countries will happen in the future. I think artificial intelligence is a necessary existence.
A survey showed that nearly 15 million hours is spent on reviewing rejected papers each year. I think those reviewers lost lots of time in the current peer review process. The process may stretch over a long period of time, weeks or months, but even years.
If a work is rejected, this does not necessarily mean it is of poor quality. A paper may be rejected is that the reviewers do not agree that the approach taken by the author is innovative. I also suspect that journals which claim to have implemented peer review actually carry out very superficial assessments, or none at all.
I think peer review is not transparent enough, not just because the reviews are inevitably subjective (especially if reviewers are unable to separate themselves adequately from their particular schools of thought), but also because reviewers may not appreciate the value of a new idea. Reviewers maybe can guess who the authors are by looking at the references they cite. This could undermine their neutral stance. The evaluation of an academic paper is also affected by the reviewer’s scientific beliefs and by the care and effort they choose to invest in the process.