{"id":303551,"date":"2024-02-20T14:22:17","date_gmt":"2024-02-20T13:22:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=303551"},"modified":"2024-02-20T14:22:19","modified_gmt":"2024-02-20T13:22:19","slug":"peer-review-expert-journal-accidentally-publishes-fake-ai-image-with-gibberish-and-giant-gonads-on-a-rat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=303551","title":{"rendered":"Peer review expert journal accidentally publishes fake AI image with gibberish and giant gonads on a rat"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Jo Nova<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This paper shows exactly how good \u201cPeer Review\u201d is<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not just that a clever AI image slipped through peer review, it\u2019s that it was garishly fake in a supersize kind of way. Scientifically everything about it was radioactive satire and yet it still got through \u201cpeer review\u201d.  The words are gibberish. The editors didn\u2019t even run a spell checker on it before publishing it, let alone the gaze of a single trained biologist in the field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paper<\/a> has been retracted thanks to the real peer review which happened on social media. This was a case of X (formerly Twitter) saves the day<\/a>. Where normal peer review can take up to two years (if you are an unpopular skeptic) it was only three days from the X review to retraction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The Telegraph sums it up:<\/strong><\/a><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

A scientific paper purporting to show the signalling pathway of sperm stem cells has met with widespread ridicule after it depicted a rodent with an anatomically eye-watering appendage and four giant testicles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The creature, labelled \u201crat\u201d, was also sitting upright in the manner of a squirrel, while the graphic was littered with nonsensical words such as \u201cdissilced\u201d, \u201ctesttomcels\u201d and \u201csenctolic\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
FIGURE 1
Spermatogonial stem cells, isolated, purified and cultured from rat testes.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The macrophages have become Macromages. The Natural killer T-Cells have become \u201cnokillas\u201d, but it\u2019s not a name-swap, it\u2019s just complete and utter nonsense \u2014 like a\u00a0 microbiology word soup met a UFO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The JAK\/STAT pathway and immune regulation in spermatogonial stem cells<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The researchers even told them the images were faked: \u201c(Images in this article were generated by Midjourney).\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At best, perhaps this is a real paper with junk AI images. There are no obviously imaginary words in the text (unlike the graphics). But it\u2019s still a devastating take on \u201cpeer review\u201d. I mean, these images are practically satire\u2026 If rushed scientists are using AI to help them write, and AI to get cheap images, and the Peer review journals are just posting anything without even checking, modern science is a zombie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is not a one off problem, and the use of AI to create images in peer reviewed science is widespread:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[The Telegraph]  Writing on the Science Integrity Digest, Dr Elisabeth Bik, the Dutch microbiologist who works spotting manipulation in scientific papers<\/a>, said: \u201cOf course, we can have a good laugh at these figures, and wonder how on earth the handling editor and the two peer reviewers didn\u2019t catch this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThese figures are clearly not scientifically correct, but if such botched illustrations can pass peer review so easily, more realistic-looking AI-generated figures have likely already infiltrated the scientific literature.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr Bik has identified more than 1,000 papers which have fraudulent imagery,<\/strong> most of which she believes was generated by AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amanda Yeo claims as many six real people supposedly gave it a tick:<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It isn\u2019t clear exactly how these diagrams made it all the way to publication without being picked up. The article was edited by a member of Frontiers<\/em>\u2018 editorial team as well as reviewed by two other parties, which means at least six people gave it their approval. In a statement to Motherboard<\/a>, one of the reviewers said that he had only assessed the paper for its scientific aspects, and that it was not his responsibility to check the accuracy of the AI-generated images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For what it\u2019s worth, Frontiers in Cell and Development Biology<\/em> (Front Cell Dev Biol) is not a big name in the medical world, but they have apparently published 10,730 papers in the National Library of Medicine<\/a>.  The umbrella publishing unit called Frontiers<\/em> \u2013says it is the 3rd most cited publisher<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The retraction message isn\u2019t exactly confidence boosting:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the nature of its AI-generated figures. The article does not meet the standards of editorial and scientific rigor for Frontiers in Cell and Development Biology; therefore, the article has been retracted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This retraction was approved by the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. Frontiers would like to thank the concerned readers who contacted us regarding the published article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lead author Xinyu Guo supposedly works at the Department of Spine Surgery, Hong Hui Hospital, Xi\u2019an Jiaotong University, Xi\u2019an, China, and has published some genetic sort of researc<\/a>h. Maybe they are real? Hard to say without digging deeper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCE<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citation: Guo X, Dong L and Hao D (2024) Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK\/STAT signaling pathway.<\/a> Front. Cell Dev. Biol.<\/em> 11:1339390. doi: 10.3389\/fcell.2023.1339390<\/p>\n\n\n\n

*Title changed in an effort to encourage more on topic<\/em> comments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It\u2019s not just that a clever AI image slipped through peer review, it\u2019s that it was garishly fake in a supersize kind of way. Scientifically everything about it was radioactive satire and yet it still got through \u201cpeer review\u201d.\u00a0 The words are gibberish. The editors didn\u2019t even run a spell checker on it before publishing it, let alone the gaze of a single trained biologist in the field.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":303557,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"It\u2019s not just that a clever AI image slipped through peer review, it\u2019s that it was garishly fake in a supersize kind of way. Scientifically everything about it was radioactive satire and yet it still got through \u201cpeer review\u201d.\u00a0 The words are gibberish. Th","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691827039,691821852,691827037,691827040],"class_list":{"0":"post-303551","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-ai-image","9":"tag-or-competes-with-its-preferred-narrative-combined-with-false-or-negative-information-spread-by-news-and-social-media-makes-society-more-prone-to-developing-mass-hysteria","10":"tag-peer-review","11":"tag-t-cells","13":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0CosmosWeekly-PeerReview_LEAD-1.jpg?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1gXZ","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":439578,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=439578","url_meta":{"origin":303551,"position":0},"title":"Bixonimania: How AI Turned a Joke Diagnosis into \u201cPeer\u2011Reviewed\u201d Medicine","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/14\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Bixonimania is a deliberately fabricated medical hoax created in 2024 specifically to test (and expose) how easily AI systems ingest and propagate medical misinformation from low-quality sources like preprints. The experiment succeeded spectacularly \u2014 and alarmingly \u2014 turning an obvious joke into something AI chatbots treated as legitimate, which then\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"AI chatbots\"","block_context":{"text":"AI chatbots","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=ai-chatbots"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Bixonimania-How-AI-Turned-a-Joke-Diagnosis-into-Peer%E2%80%91Reviewed-Medicine.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Bixonimania-How-AI-Turned-a-Joke-Diagnosis-into-Peer%E2%80%91Reviewed-Medicine.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Bixonimania-How-AI-Turned-a-Joke-Diagnosis-into-Peer%E2%80%91Reviewed-Medicine.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Bixonimania-How-AI-Turned-a-Joke-Diagnosis-into-Peer%E2%80%91Reviewed-Medicine.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330187,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=330187","url_meta":{"origin":303551,"position":1},"title":"So much for \u201cpeer review\u201d \u2014 Wiley shuts down 19 science journals and retracts 11,000 gobbledygook papers","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/27\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Proving that unpaid anonymous review is worth every cent, the 217 year old Wiley science publisher \u201cpeer reviewed\u201d 11,300 papers that were fake, and didn\u2019t even notice. It\u2019s not just a scam, it\u2019s an industry. Naked \u201cgobbledygook sandwiches\u201d got past peer review, and the expert reviewers didn\u2019t so much as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"AI\"","block_context":{"text":"AI","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=ai"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Big-brother-is-watching-you-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Big-brother-is-watching-you-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Big-brother-is-watching-you-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Big-brother-is-watching-you-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Big-brother-is-watching-you-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":440829,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=440829","url_meta":{"origin":303551,"position":2},"title":"From Einstein’s Disdain to the Turbidite Orthodoxy: How Blind Peer Review Stifles Scientific Progress","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/22\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Shanmugam argues that while peer review serves as a quality-control mechanism for scientific publishing and grants, it suffers from deep, systemic flaws that hinder innovation and fairness. He notes that Albert Einstein expressed disdain for peer review, and that the system\u2014often conducted as double-blind review to mask identities\u2014loses the transparency\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Bias\"","block_context":{"text":"Bias","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bias"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-From-Einsteins-Disdain-to-the-Turbidite-Orthodoxy-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-From-Einsteins-Disdain-to-the-Turbidite-Orthodoxy-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-From-Einsteins-Disdain-to-the-Turbidite-Orthodoxy-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-From-Einsteins-Disdain-to-the-Turbidite-Orthodoxy-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":440832,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=440832","url_meta":{"origin":303551,"position":3},"title":"How Blind Peer Review Stifles Scientific Progress","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/22\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The paper \"The Peer-Review Problem: A Sedimentological Perspective\" is a 2022 article (published in the Journal of the Indian Association of Sedimentologists, vol. 39, pp. 3\u201324) by G. Shanmugam, a geologist with extensive experience in process sedimentology and petroleum geology.","rel":"","context":"In \"Biomedical literature\"","block_context":{"text":"Biomedical literature","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=biomedical-literature"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":415493,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=415493","url_meta":{"origin":303551,"position":4},"title":"Peer-Reviewing Peer Review","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/01\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"We\u2019re told, endlessly, that science is a self-correcting machine. A pristine engine of truth where bad ideas are discarded, and good ones rise to the top like cream. We are told to\u00a0\u201cTrust The Science\u2122\u201c\u00a0because it has passed the magical, mystical trial known as\u00a0Peer Review.","rel":"","context":"In \"\u201csophisticated global networks\u201d\"","block_context":{"text":"\u201csophisticated global networks\u201d","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=sophisticated-global-networks"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0AQOHQLpQZ-HBGVDRmGb2-fMsaY5QvJYypJZGDrQl7uirwrO89EA237ct6PtPMweZt2iAodbOmI6gfbccHlBmcKvCbUe_4-bKJd-ZM4nbc1yb3BUQeCo9xtKHDsmmqq9X-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C677&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0AQOHQLpQZ-HBGVDRmGb2-fMsaY5QvJYypJZGDrQl7uirwrO89EA237ct6PtPMweZt2iAodbOmI6gfbccHlBmcKvCbUe_4-bKJd-ZM4nbc1yb3BUQeCo9xtKHDsmmqq9X-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C677&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0AQOHQLpQZ-HBGVDRmGb2-fMsaY5QvJYypJZGDrQl7uirwrO89EA237ct6PtPMweZt2iAodbOmI6gfbccHlBmcKvCbUe_4-bKJd-ZM4nbc1yb3BUQeCo9xtKHDsmmqq9X-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C677&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0AQOHQLpQZ-HBGVDRmGb2-fMsaY5QvJYypJZGDrQl7uirwrO89EA237ct6PtPMweZt2iAodbOmI6gfbccHlBmcKvCbUe_4-bKJd-ZM4nbc1yb3BUQeCo9xtKHDsmmqq9X-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C677&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0AQOHQLpQZ-HBGVDRmGb2-fMsaY5QvJYypJZGDrQl7uirwrO89EA237ct6PtPMweZt2iAodbOmI6gfbccHlBmcKvCbUe_4-bKJd-ZM4nbc1yb3BUQeCo9xtKHDsmmqq9X-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C677&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":237374,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=237374","url_meta":{"origin":303551,"position":5},"title":"The Rise and Fall of Peer Review","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/02\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Adam Mastroianni\u00a0has written a marvelous article at his\u00a0substack, Experimental History, evaluating the history, the function and the misfunction of the peer review process.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-38.png?fit=1100%2C751&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-38.png?fit=1100%2C751&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-38.png?fit=1100%2C751&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-38.png?fit=1100%2C751&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-38.png?fit=1100%2C751&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/303551","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=303551"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/303551\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":303559,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/303551\/revisions\/303559"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/303557"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=303551"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=303551"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=303551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}