• hydroptic
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    5 days ago

    Elsevier’s response, they said, was “to maintain that the editors should not be paying attention to language, grammar, readability, consistency, or accuracy of proper nomenclature or formatting.”

    Fucking hell, Elsevier, we all know you’re shitty people who are doing immense harm to the world for personal gain, but do you have to rub it in our faces every time? Can’t you at least like pretend?

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      5 days ago

      If they think their editors should be ignoring all that, then what the fuck should they be doing?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        They don’t think there should be editors around. You don’t have to pay AI except maybe a subscription fee.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      I’m really asking myself here: what is Elsevier doing for a living?

      Like, what value do they bring to the table at this point? Pushing submissions through a shitty chatgpt wrapper?

      • hydroptic
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        They’re making money for a living.

        I don’t think “what value are we bringing to the academic publishing industry?” is something anybody there really considers. Well unless you define “value” as “shareholder profit”, at any rate.