[JohnFen]

> but often makes hard to detect errors ranging from minor to outright lies is dangeorous.

Oh, I agree. However, the peer-review system does mitigate this problem to a useful degree. Without such a system, it would be impossible to have any degree of trust in any paper at all.

> What we're really finding out is that journals are often little better than LLMs as information sources.

It depends on the journal. There are absolutely crap ones out there that need to be ignored. But there are also good ones out there that have earned their reputation. Even there, BS can get through of course -- but to say that such journals are mostly unreliable is seriously overstating the issue.

[smeej]

I've yet to see studies saying this isn't pervasive across journals. The vast majority are apparently affected.

The idea of peer-reviewed journals is great. The reality is a circle jerk.