We all know Elsevier only upholds the highest standards, after all why would they have such a large market share?

because they're all as bad as most of us and only read the headline :(

Editors, typesetters and peer reviewers have also been replaced with AI.

Since the rest of the paper looks decent (I am no expert in this field), I have a guess: it got to review and it came back with a 'minor review' and the comment 'please summarize XY at the end'.

In low impact journals minor reviews are handeled in a way, that the editor trusts the scientists to address minor changes accordingly. Afterwards it goes to production, where some badly payed people – most of the time from India – put everything in format, send out a proof with a deadline of max 2 days and then it will be published.

I don't want to defend this practice, but thats how something like this can get through.

They were using AI to proof it

The goal of any medical institution should be to generate profits.

- capitalists

Academic publishing

There are so many different journals out there it's hard to keep track of which ones are actually reputable anymore.

Almost need some overarching scientific body that can review and provide ratings for different journals to be able to even cite from the information within or something.

Like science and nature would be S-tier, whereas this journal should be F-tier apparently and people shouldn't even be allowed to cite articles found within it for their own papers.

Reading is hard too. If only there was an AI that could do the reading

I don't even get the writing aspect. An LLM is 100% accurate when it has as many errors as an average human, so your product will always be worse with AI. Always. It's never good to use it.

CTRL+f, "AI", enter

but no, let's not take literally 5 seconds to check whether the AI got confused and included an admission of your shame in the paper.

Not sure you'd want to publish in Radiology Case Reports. It has an impact factor of 0.8, and I am not saying using impact factor as a general quality metric is good, but anything below 1 is probably not worth your time unless it is a very very new journal that just doesn't have enough history.

So no peer review? Or did the peer just use a chat not too?

I work in healthcare. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

This practise is a remnant of the printing times. Papers would get accepted and then printed in a later issue. But once the online publishing started, this kind of was not necessary anymore. Which lead to online publication before print, but somehow still using the print date for the article because a lot of journals still have physical prints.

That said, I don't know if this journal does that and then if not it is simply stupid. They might do it because they limit "online" issues in size, like the printed ones. Which is idiotic if you don't actually print anything.

Come to think of it, I wonder if using ChatGPT violates HIPPA because it sends the patient data to OpenAI?

I smell a lawsuit.

It's not a literature review. It's a case report on a specific patient. It's impossible to imagine writing a discussion of your own patient in this way, or to accept an approximately 5 page article without reading it.

The journal Radiology Case Reports is refereed by an editorial board led by University of Washington professors, associate professors, and doctors of medicine.

Radiology Case Reports is an open-access journal publishing exclusively case reports that feature diagnostic imaging. Categories in which case reports can be placed include the musculoskeletal system, spine, central nervous system, head and neck, cardiovascular, chest, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, multisystem, pediatric, emergency, women's imaging, oncologic, normal variants, medical devices, foreign bodies, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine, molecular imaging, ultrasonography, imaging artifacts, forensic, anthropological, and medical-legal. Articles must be well-documented and include a review of the appropriate literature.

$550 - Article publishing charge for open access

10 days - Time to first decision

18 days - Review time

19 days - Submission to acceptance

80% - Acceptance rate