SCIENTISTS ADMIT THEY’RE TOO BUSY WATCHING NETFLIX TO READ EACH OTHER’S BULLSH!T ANYMORE, GIANT AI PENIS RAT PROVES
In what experts are calling “the final d!ck straw” for scientific credibility, academics worldwide are openly confessing they’ve completely given up on reading the avalanche of scientific papers flooding journals faster than a teenager’s browser history clears after parents enter the room.
PENIS RODENT EXPOSES ACADEMIC DYSFUNCTION
A scientific paper featuring an AI-generated rat sporting a comically oversized phallus has gone viral, not for its groundbreaking research on “biological signalling in stem cells destined to become sperm,” but because absolutely nobody involved in the peer review process bothered to f@#king look at the images before publication.
“We receive approximately 87 billion papers per minute,” explained Dr. Barely Skimming, editor at Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology. “At this point, we just check that the title doesn’t contain the phrase ‘Hitler was right’ and hit publish.”
OVERWHELMED ACADEMICS DEVELOP NEW COPING STRATEGIES
Scientists now admit they’ve developed sophisticated techniques to handle the flood of publications, including “abstract roulette” (reading only the first and last sentences of abstracts) and “reference bingo” (citing papers based solely on how prestigious they sound).
“I haven’t actually read a complete scientific paper since 2017,” confessed Professor Honesty McTruthful of Cambridge University. “I just skim the abstract, look at pretty graphs, and nod knowingly when colleagues mention it. That rat penis would have slipped right past me too.”
Studies show the average scientist now spends 73% of their “reading time” looking at the acknowledgments section to see if their name appears.
QUANTITY OVER QUALITY: THE NEW SCIENTIFIC METHOD
“The modern scientific process is beautiful in its simplicity,” explained Dr. Publish Perish, who has authored 412 papers this year. “Generate graphs using Excel’s random number function, write an abstract using academic buzzwords, and attach a conclusion claiming your work will cure cancer, solve climate change, or make everyone’s genitals 30% more attractive.”
According to made-up statistics we’re presenting as fact, 87% of published scientific findings cannot be reproduced, primarily because nobody has time to try reproducing them when they could be publishing their own unreproducible nonsense instead.
THE SOLUTION NOBODY WANTS
“We could publish fewer, better papers,” suggests Dr. Common Sense, immediately before being laughed out of academia and forced to take a job explaining science on TikTok. “Or perhaps implement better quality control.”
The Royal Society has proposed a radical solution: actually reading papers before publishing them. This controversial approach has been met with fierce resistance from academics who argue it would severely cut into their Twitter time and Netflix binges.
As one anonymous reviewer put it: “You expect me to carefully examine figures for anatomically impossible rodent genitalia when I’ve got 47 more papers to review by tomorrow AND the new season of Bridgerton just dropped? Get f@#ked.”
In response to the crisis, universities worldwide have introduced a revolutionary new metric for promotion: papers published divided by papers actually read by someone other than the author’s mother. Current average: 0.0003.
Meanwhile, the rat with the enormous schlong has received seventeen job offers from prestigious institutions and is currently negotiating a book deal, proving once again that in science, it’s not the quality of your research that matters, but the size of your data.
