Poor publication ethics in my lab

nd appear to be more about marketing than scientific progress. For instance, one lab mate recently proposed what he called a “novel” network for ROI segmentation that delivers poor results. He then "improves" the metrics by artificially inflating the segmentation—essentially marking more pixels around his prediction under the label of “adaptive segmentation.” It’s clear to me that this is a form of cheating, and both he and my supervisor are aware of it, yet they continue to publish these kinds of papers.

In the deep learning community, where conferences are often overloaded with submissions and reviewers might not have the time to thoroughly scrutinize each paper, this approach seems to be rewarded. This situation is incredibly frustrating, especially as I’m working diligently on my own paper. I often get comments from peers and even my supervisor suggesting that I’m too slow to publish, which only adds to my distress.

Has anyone else experienced a similar environment? How do you cope with or navigate such unethical practices while striving to maintain integrity in your work?