[janosett]

How easy would it be for researchers to differentiate deliberately fabricated abstracts written by humans from abstracts of peer-reviewed scientific papers from respected publications? I think the answer to that question might give more context to this result.

[PeterisP]

Probably impossible. As a reviewer, the abstract won't tell me if the paper is bullshit or faked. An abstract can tell me that there are substantial language issues, or that the authors are totally unskilled about the field, or that the topic is not interesting to me, or their claims lack ambition, but beyond that crude filter, all the data for separating poor papers from awesome ones, and true claims from unfounded one can only be in the paper itself, an abstract won't contain them.