Elektrine lite

← Feed

@blakestacey@awful.systems

2026-09-17 16:14 UTC

Bethany Brookshire (who’s an old pal of mine from our ScienceOnline days) reports: People are using AI to impersonate real science journalists. And one even got PUBLISHED. In Science. Caroline Williams writes on LinkedIn: The person who was impersonating me managed to get an article published in Science, under my by-line. And they got paid for it! I’ve seen the pitches (bad), and the email chain between editors who weren’t all that impressed, but googled me and decide to take a punt. When the article came in it was dry, clunky and badly written, but after several rounds of editing they managed to get it into a publishable state. It went online in June and was up until yesterday when it became clear they (and I) had been scammed. […] The whole thing makes me feel sick. I know from my work as an editor that the reputational damage is real. Had I pitched a story to them afterwards they would very understandably have said “Hell no!”. Who has the time to do someone else’s job? They tried “me”, “I” didn’t deliver, so no thank you. I have no idea how many more editors out there have me on their ‘do not commission’ list because of this person’s actions. There may also be several scientists who will not want to talk to me because they’ve had a bad experience with the fake one. More broadly, if this is a wider scam (and based on what others have told me, I think it is), it is potentially a serious issue for science journalism and journalism in general. And I’m not sure what we can do about that. Science has retracted the fraudulent story.

Replies (2)

  • Although no specific errors in this story have so far been identified Well here’s the very start of the retracted article: On the screen, two side-by-side squares of color flicker rapidly Except oops it was referring to a study that used groups of moving dots rather than “squares”. This can be seen in that studies first figure. Bam. A specific error in the first sentence…

    Open ##4743674

  • @froztbyte@awful.systems 2026-09-19 08:35

    I’m curious about this one, legal repercussions against the perpetrator seem pretty clearly viable (it would seem to me that Science has a viable fraud case, and Williams for probably a few too). why wouldn’t anyone do that? is that not the done thing in academia? the network effects of reputational damage are pretty oof though :| this shit should be regulated into the dustbin of history. relatedly, the recent release of unredacted docs from the NYT vs OpenAI case showing the clear knowledge of theft and substitution… it’s all willingly done

    Open ##4760011