Academia’s Secret Black Market Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 май 2024
- Go to ground.news/pete to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off unlimited access this month only.
Update: My mistake in the video, Elsevier and the list of other orgs I mentioned are "publishers" not journals.
My Website: petejudo.com
Follow me:
Behavioral Science Instagram: @petejudoofficial
Instagram: @petejudo
Twitter: @petejudo
LinkedIn: Peter Judodihardjo
Good tools I actually use:
Shortform: www.Shortform.com/pete
Ground News: ground.news/Pete
Go to ground.news/pete to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off unlimited access this month only.
Hey man. Chill with the ads... you made a 13 min video with a 2 min add. Dont be a shill man, be smarter than that
why you type like a cop
Love the channel, but man, you are killing your credibility shilling for Ground News. There's so much right-wing nonsense they've labeled as "Left" it's as ridiculous as the papers you're discussing in this video. I know you need to get paid, but c'mon, man.
@@beenhog6922 he seems like a leftist vegetable, so hes probably not smarter than that
Have to leave. Man you really really lost me here
Seriously, this is nuts. 11k papers that were "peer reviewed" were retracted recently.
You are doing a great job of educating folks on this issue!!
Peer review isn’t working… I’ve peer reviewed for two journals by small publishers (one a University), and the process worked as it should, but it takes a lot of time outside a researcher’s day to review a paper properly (it’s good training though)
Maybe with the sheer scale of publication now, PhD students should be trained “live” in peer review as a matter of course
That's why there are prestigious and ordinary journals. If only prestige journals would exist with a tough peer review, where should young career researchers (PhDs) publish the results of their first steps? Many such papers are very niche and technical with potentially not a great immediate contribution to the field to make a big statement. So many PhDs start with ordinary journals where peer review can be not too tough.
Yet, I agree that it is sad that more and more papers are so bad that should be retracted. Yet, the fraction is really low with 0.03% in 2015 and 0.25% in 2022, mostly from SA, Russia and China.
In my recent experience, publishers have started to emphasize that once the article is accepted, the author list cannot be changed. Now I understand why
I prefer when the author list is alphabetized, but it still sucks that the 1st author listed will be the 1 name used for in-text citations henceforth.
@@Heyu7her3 No one ever alphabetizes the authors list. The first author always stays first. In rare cases, making several authors with equal contributions is possible.
@@salganik Depends on the journal and the field. There is no cross-disciplinary standard as to who goes where in the author list. In chemistry, the PI, who is often also the corresponding author, is often listed last with their status indicated with a *. Some journals have started including a 'contributions' statement indicating who did what.
@@salganikin math, nobody cares about first author slots. In most cases, the author list is just alphabetized.
Careful Pete! (7:15) Elsevier, Oxford, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc., are NOT journals; they are publishers.
He is a researcher and doesn't know what he's researching. This is awful
@@kalebyee He's just using a short cut phase - all his audience will be OK with this.
@@stephenclark9917 "all his audience will be OK with this" is a bold claim. Who is his audience? Do you know every one of them? And if you do, how do you know all of them agree on it? Also, "journal" and "publisher" are simple words. It seems he doesn't know the difference since he already said he is very careful with what he says in his videos
Doesn't matter. They only partner with decent journals.
@@arthurcuesta6041 you're saying that the words used don't matter in a RUclips channel about science?
Also, they matter, since he is talking about giving wrong or deceitful information, and saying a publisher is a journal is just wrong information
As a former editor of four different journals over the past 30 years, we have always had a policy that all authors must be listed at time of submission. We have never allowed the addition of any authors after acceptance as a change of authorship would be grounds for revoking the acceptance. I am shocked that other journals allowed this.
How in the world does someone think to get away with publishing two academic articles a week? I understand the unscrupulous will find ways to cheat, but to do it so clumsily? This is like a minimum wage earner robbing a bank, then returning to work in a Rolls Royce and not expecting suspicion!
I mean. Our politicians do that…
higher ups at the academic institution were very happy with it until it became too evident. I can't believe anybody would see an output like that and not think there's something dodgy there. But they always react surprised.
@@alejandramoreno6625 I’m sure that’s true, and recall similar nonsense from my school days. Publishing 2 papers a week though, is just comical, when each takes months or years to properly produce.
@@-astrangerontheinternet6687 "Hi, I am person, I have to express my displeasure with politicians with a factually untrue exaggeration"
And here I am taking months to get actual research published...
Indeed, and editors criticize you over every little thing they personally don't like
I know right. It's really unfair that some people can get their papers accepted within days or a few weeks, while those who really invest their time and resources to do the right thing get rejected after waiting for months!
bad searcher. A modern searcher should publish at least two for every 5 minute of paid work. Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth financing any research.
Took me 2 years on average to publish research...
As a practicing physician, my patients are being deeply harmed by this academic behavior. I can no longer trust what is being published to treat patients.
Right wing conspiracy theories, obviously. Just trust the science, obviously.
@@vyor8837 Both are just opposing extremes
As a journal editor, I was already approached by a Russia-based paper mill years ago. They offered several incentives, cash sums for papers, bonuses for speed and volume. They would even provide the peer reviewers, to make the process look legit on the system. I turned the offer down, but I wonder how many of my peers could not resist the temptation to make a quick buck (editors' remuneration is not usually more than a small lump sum stipend, if that).
As Russian why I am not surprised that these exist here...
In Soviet Russia, paper mill you
I wonder what the name of the a paper mill was? Or name of the person who offered it?
@@KateeAngelAs Russian I’m not surprised that some editor and a professor of Uppsala University who publishes and allows to publish only anti-Russian propaganda would lie here.
This type of professors of sociology or politics such as Matthew Katy often use money from the Swedish or EU or USA government or sometimes private donations to publish made up, twisted or fabricated stories and research which supports their political narrative. Publishing necessary propaganda in scientific journals, books and movies is called “soft power” and is used as a psyop to manipulate public opinion. That’s why the West is so much obsessed with Russia and Putin that they have to spend money and their lives “investigating” Soviet Union and Russia to write nonsense and meaningless articles. So, don’t believe this professor.
@@irinalapina270 unfortunately, I can't seem to find the email from ca 2018 anymore. I spent quite some time looking, but Outlook and the university mail servers were fighting me every step of the way.
So I used to work in corporate industry research, where all the focus was on being first to market with some relevant number. I could not stand it and I came to academia, guess who wears a dunce cap all the time now ! Thanks, I will share this with my family so they can understand how shady and murky academic publishing is. Its like nothing should be falsiable and you should get everything correct on first try or the funding or scholarship goes into the air. I have felt extremely mentally stressed, comparable to my corporate job where I was doing 10-11 hours for 5 days a week on stupid deadlines. The only thing I feel at times has changed for me, is that I set deadlines now. But with this whole, line goes up, number goes up approach even prevailing in academia. Maybe even that optimism will go away. Still thank you Pete :) keep up the great work.
Cost of adding an extra author to your paper: Nil
Value of being an author: Keeps your career alive
Changing the system so the above isn't true is the only long term fix for this issue.
They _are_ the system, they're not going to change it.
Adding authors to actual research papers is almost the honorable way today.
It can take only one paper to get the Nobel prize but in the British system (in New Zealand is what we follow) a hundred papers to be a Professor, what's more valuable?
experimental particle physics papers have dozens of not hundreds of named authors... because experimental particle physics has been deeply corrupted for a few decades already!
@@linksvexier9272transorbital lobotomy won the Nobel prize in medicine. the value of a paper (or rather, an academic) is always contextual.
as a researcher, it's honestly exhausting to think about how much of a burden honesty is. We spend a year or more of intense effort on a paper, while these psychopaths can just buy them with cash or fabricate them and the result looks the same on our CVs.
It's not just easy to get sucked into the fake publication vortex, it's almost impossible to avoid . . . the "cost" of honesty puts many at a distinct disadvantage, especially since this agenda has become the de facto norm, rather than the exception. Trying to compete with actual "honesty" is becoming evermore exhausting, while those who have become more adept at cheating with fake content simply accelerate past those who are still trying to remain honest, there's very little incentive to do so.
@@SynthoidSoundsIt goes from exception to normal to expected. When everyone else game the system, why would you even try to be honest?
If a position in academia requires points and fake papers are the easiest way to get points, and everyone from your friends to competitiors of the position does it; then why bother?
And this expansive nature of corruption applies everywhere. It starts from regular college students(during the pandemic, they changed the exams to limit cheating by having too many questions with a harsh time limit, and only those who cheat were able to get high scores because of that; in the next exam less people tried to solve the exam by themselves.)
We put so much faith in journals and their peer-review processes, it's hard to think about that faith being taken advantage of like this.
That's why reasoning and critical analysis is always necessary. Which is why people referencing papers isn't always true.
Who puts such faith? Neither masses buy it nor do people who actually had a few their papers reviewed... There is some only narrow band where people speak highly about it.
@@itsgonnabeanaurfromme it is true in regards to what the literature shows
Journals need to start treating reviewing as a real job and paying reviewers tbh, no wonder they half-ass it when they literally do it for free for these billion dollar worth journals most of the time
“Not like rubbish no name journals “ at this point with all the stuff you’ve been revealing my trust for reputable journals is starting to feel the same.
The other thing is that it happens occasionally (but rarely) that actually good and valid studies get retracted due to pressure from above because the conclusions of these studies do not go well with the interests of some people.
I'm stunned you can apparently submit to a "good" journal, and the standards are so lax that you can pull off all this craziness.
If you were forced to have a 20 minute phone call with a subject matter expert discussing the paper before submitting, it would massively cut down on this fraud. And it wouldn't cost the journal that much to implement.
The fact that scientists allow journals to have these low standards brings their occupation into disrepute.
This is a very interesting idea, given that conversations via Internet are essentially free. However, what Pete is describing appears to be corruption at the journals themselves.
That would make the cronyism worse
@@Heyu7her3 it's not about whether they think it's good or not, it's about if you can hold a conversation on the paper you supposedly wrote.
Trustworthiness of Academia? Almost zero after I did my PhD in science.
What was your PhD about?
Lol I couldn't even make it halfway
So it's your fault!
that's a cool field, I love the field of "Science"
In science
Majored in science
At science class
In science university 😂
Publish or Perish is alive and strong.
great job. economics field also follows similar practices. an lse professor re-run the tests for many famous economics papers and found data manipulation but i cant remember the title of his article.
Alvin Young's Paper CHANNELLING FISHER: RANDOMIZATION TESTS AND THE STATISTICAL INSIGNIFICANCE OF SEEMINGLY SIGNIFICANT EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Publishing scientific papers on average 2-3 days, is not suspicious at all.
Meanwhile I can't write one for years 😂
If you live on the planet Venus...
It's actually possible if you have a bunch of PhD students and postdocs working for you , like maybe 10 postdocs. Some professors have that, but it might be close to 1 a week , not half that
@@user-lt5no1xt1z True, but not the case for Filippo Berto. His NTNU group was not that big or productive. Instead, he had a lot of sketchy collaborations resulting in 871 papers in 2018-2023. The danger of such publishing is that even if those bad papers are not cited, you can get a lot of self-citations from them.
In the past I could do research on any topic and feel informed. Now, unless my expertise is in the subject I'm unsure if I can trust what I am reading.
So true. It’s honestly sad
10:47 LOL at the Paper Name Generator!™ 😂
I've pitched that concept before lol... like a "Research Paper MadLibs"
I'm glad you're bringing attention to this problem.
As a molecular biology student im dead by the end of this video
Elsevier, OUP, Taylor&Francis etc. are publishers, not journals. Would be interesting how prestigious exactly the journals can be, bc. I reckon nobody would fall for a wrong author in high profile journals.
A large publishing house like Elsevier will have journals that vary widely in prestige
There's recently been a huge complaint or lawsuit against a few of the large publishers 🤔 I forget the details of it
Don't be so sure
Reckon away. Only, nobody would believe a lie if they didn’t have confidence in the one who told it and considered themselves a good judge of character.
"So Journals step up!"
Journals: "Wait, what? We need to actually work now? WTF can we outsource it to research community? "
It took me THREE years to do enough worthwhile research to publish ONE good paper. That included coming up with the idea, experiments, and finding and keeping someone willing to let me do it. System busted. Yeah. ...1991 PhD EE graduate.
Personally, I cling to the belief that quality is not quantity. And remind myself of the original article by Watson and Crick that established the helicoidal structure of DNA that was barely one page long. Yes, I understand that life is very difficult for honest people in academia. Journals have to urgently step up their peer review process if they wish to retain any credibility.
please don't stop!
As a former academic i can tell you with 100% confidence that this sort of gaming of the system to obtain funding and tenure is widespread. I pointed this out repeatedly over several years and was ignored or worse, attacked. You should not trust the research base that is out there in the literature, nor should you trust academia to police itself or correct itself. The rot is deep in the roots and too many people have too much to lose.
Is he daft? Didn’t he think that people would notice someone writing papers at this rate?
He actually told people that he wanted to be the most published author in Europe.
Part of the problem was that in Norway the school (which would be nominally responsible for policing him) received state money in proportion to the number of papers published, so they had an incentive to look the other way. Retraction Watch covered this.
@@patrickchase5614 This is points mania. Using a points system is simply a lazy bureaucratic way of evaluation researchers and institutions, not requiring expensive oversight by real experts.
@@awuma It's what I like to call "false objectivity'. Unfortunately it's extremely common the world over.
@@patrickchase5614 Goodheart's Law 101.
@@EmpiricalPragmatist Absolutely. You will get exactly what you measure and no more.
"Follow the science" "Safe and effective" "Global boiling"
Great camera setup but, mate, you need a better mic. Also when you mentioned the journals where these papers were published you named publishrs. Plenty of crap journals under those publishers.
Uhh yall audio bros are so petty... i can hear him just fine
I lean more on the second explanation because most journals have separate deadlines for the author list and final revision of the paper.
Comedy gold, love it. Keep the heat on these “researcher” goobers
Pete I will literally send you a free microphone… please use a mic.
And thank you for another great video.
I trained a image generation model on western blots out of interest and it worked surprisingly well. Scary times are truly ahead.
Could you provide info/blog link for Elizabeth Bik in the description
you make realy good videos , keep it up :)
I want science to progress, to be as Carl Sagan put it "a candle in the dark". But academic publishing has no defenses against fraud when it has such a cosy relationship with academics who have massive motivation to push out poor or just outright fraudulent papers and peer review is hopeless to detect it. When was the last time peer review spotted fraud? The problem is the "star system" in academia that rewards productivity over everything else to advance careers.
It rewards prestige, name recognition/ branding, & the status quo
Great channel.
Cytometry plot is basically just the readout of a flow cytometer,
As someone familiar with cytometry plots, you could've at least attempted to explain them, if you pulled them up. The statement you make is correct but "This is fake and I won't explain why" is not the scientific way of arguing your case.
Because he doesn’t know! If you’re familiar with them, like you are, you can look it up yourself. I understand your point but I personally feel as though it’s better to say, hey I’m not familiar with this so I’m not going to attempt to explain it to you
I see your point but here's my take: if you don't get it, don't cover it. If you do report on something, make sure you know what you are talking about. I don't think that's a wild take.
Glad to see you using the scientific term " tippy top"
Wow I had no idea about this. This looks so cool. 5k for an authorship placement on a good paper is awesome!!!
One should train LLMS to detect similar papers (once you have a couple of them)
I Love all your vids
I love your videos but damn 21% OF THIS VIDEO WAS AN AD!
THANK YOU, I was annoyed by that, too.
Dude has to pay his bills and it is free content, what do you expect?
@@jonathanbell5996 Well since my comment wasn't clear to you, I expect less than 21% of the video to be an advertisement.
@@cea90How much did you pay for this video?
Holy shit you're not joking. I get that you want to monetise but that is taking the piss
Those flow plots look INSANE
Listening to this, I'm drawn to this question: how *do* journals vet the papers which are submitted to them? Do they have a staff of experts to do a sanity check, are they counting the average syllable length of words, or...?
Please make a video on paper mill master from India, Abhijit Dey, assistant professor, Presidency University.
7:23: These are all publishers (all major for-profit publishers!), not journals.
Agreed. I'm a great fan of this channel, but its credibility would be enhanced if it used more accurate terminology.
After looking at some of International Publishing's listings, it appears that they are now recruiting authors prior to submission. Many of the publication dates are not until 2025 or even 2026 in some cases. It makes me wonder if there are any companies that allow academics to pay to meaningfully participate on others' papers. As in, some data analysis or task is reserved for paying authors to do in order to defend against fraud allegations.
Pete is dropping truth bombs and bringing the receipts! Great channel.
Over 20% of this video is an ad
Yeah that was annoying a.f.
This is why Rumble is much better than You"Goatse"Tube
I know its embarrassing
It's one sponsorship, you can skip through it if you want
I don't hate it. If it's a 2 minute ad every time, sometimes it's a 10 minute video, sometimes it's a 25 minute video. We need him to be able to keep this fight up and views just don't cut it. Obviously I wish it was shorter, but not hating as long as he isn't advertising a scam.
If publishing was less valuable to authors, then we would see less of this. Can it be made less valuable?
Every week I get two or three e-mails from "publishers" asking me if I want to send specific papers to their journals. Papers that have already been published. I suppose people may change the title, re-arrange the abstract and publish a paper twice, and the "publishers" know this.
Tell me again, why do we need journals? What value do they provide again?
There was an interview with one of the group that submitted ridiculous, made up research papers, and had several accepted before they were figured out. Their goal wasn't fraud, but rather to expose the lax standards of the journals. He said after a few submissions, he figured out a "formula" for getting a paper accepted, and a high success rate immediately followed.
One paper was on something like observations of homosexual behavior of dogs at a dog park. Another was a translation of a section of Mein Kampf into a feminist tract.
The journals need to publish just as badly as the academics need to be published.
I just submitted a paper for school - no original research, no new conclusions, just an undergrad literature review - and suddenly I'm wondering if what I wrote was based on solid research. Many of the papers came to similar or the same conclusions and sort of serve as a backup for each other, but if I'm just learning about this stuff, how am I supposed to be certain that all 12 (?) were legitimate? This is... Is there a career in doing research forensics? I'd like to channel my frustration, and I am decently good following things back to the source with knockoff products and random quotes. I wish a job like that wasn't necessary but if it's going to become a 21st century career, I might like to be involved.
Yeah, those flow cytometry dot plots look really sus. There is barely any stray cells and the cells are so perfectly clustered, almost like they're not cells...
do you think theres fraud in other types of writeups as well? eg:
whitepapers,technical docs,industry reports,case studies, etc
Im guessing there is but its not as bad cause of the nature of these other types of writeups
(Don't mind me here frantically skipping back and forth because I just can't figure out if I'm in the Ground News sponsor segment now or not.)
Is the validity of the data necessarily compromised?
That list was publishing groups not journals
So if every time I played Mad Libs in high school and used scientific terms instead of synonyms for penis I could've gotten published in a medical journal? Wack
I believe International Publisher llc. has an office right next to Real Business Inc. and Dr. Scienence & Partners
So what's the solution?
Sounds like paying for an independent review or an independent lab to replicate it.
Idk that's undoable for anthropology studies. Perhaps checking how much each author knows about the study that they did? Including how the study can connect to other studies
All of science papers need to go in the trash and it all needs to be redone properly without corporate corruption
Damn. So Pete should we trust any journal?
Interesting video, however you called Cambridge University Press and Springer Nature (among others) “journals” even though they’re not publishers.
Papermill, ah the smell of cooking cabbage.
What do you do if you think that an author is participating in a paper mill?
If people understood mimetics and perverse incentives we might be able to foresee and prevent these problems in the sciences. But people are averse to looking at unforseen consequences and will always create models and systems with the assumption that people will have good motives and behavior. A system will always evolve towards a maximal state if there are no corrective measures or checks and balances, and they have to be reviewed regularly.
If you steal from one source, that's plagiarism. If you steal from many, that's research. Remember that PhD just means "Piled Higher and Deeper".
Berto's undermining the term Doctor of Philosophy and reaffirming that his academic title of "Ph.D." truly meant Piled High and Deep.
Pete,
Walters, Springer, etc. are not journals, they're publisher conglomerates
The journal system needs to be abolished.
So, I could go out and spend $1000 and get my name as an author on a paper? This sounds like fun. I actually sympathize with the Chinese medical students, buying a paper seems like the correct answer for getting through the bureaucratic morass and getting on to what they aspire to do: heal patients.
Resuscitating the exposé. As valuable as anything on RUclips today.
Currency is the currency of the age, even in Academia.
03:37 Someone has been watching Game Changer, I see.
Bother, your videos are way more popular now. Can you fix the audio?
Why don't they just cut out the middleman and auction off the Nobel Prize?
I don't think you have nailed the root cause. Some people would never be tempted by evil and deceit because they are forthright, virtuous, bound by a feeling for justice and a courage to think for themselves, the fortitude to withstand temptation and the temperance needed to endure hardship. Others aren't. Why? That is the question that you need to ask yourself, however obvious it may seem to me
You are exactly right, usa
Similar to Hindawi. MDPI is very suspicious? It had been investigated in the past several times for shady and corrupted practices?
So much for trust the scientists
In addition to all this phoney stuff, many "legitimate" papers, despite peer review, have substantial flaws or get wildly misconstrued by later works by other "scholars".
Wait until you discover some countries doesn't have regulations to OPEN a scientific journal
Does he sleep faster as well?
The solution isn't going to come from the publishers, they're famously the most greedy of all. We're going to have to do this together, or else that last 20+ years of research output is suspect. 😬
Not related to this video, but to the stuff the channel talks about in general: My friend told me their advisor set up a symposium in Europe so that he could have taxpayers fund his and his friends' travel to his destination wedding.
Damn. I thought Hendrik Schön with his 1 paper/week was the very best.
Ask me anything about flow cytometry.
Those looked like a bunch of negative expressions.
Journals and Seminars are made for profit, even without corruption. Seminars are for high ranking public servants to have a free holiday, at the taxpayer's expense. From Local Administration staff to High Court Judges, seminars are a grift.
Video starts are 3:25
The problems with highlighting the bias of a publication are several. For instance, how are publications that assiduously avoid bias categorized? And how do we expose the bias of the auditor who assigns them a bias? A major problem facing independent publications over the past few years has been that if they do not adhere to the prevalent bias in the mainstream, they are labeled "extremist" or "far-right" over and above the objectons of the publications themselves. This is done explicitly to impugn the credibility of sources that may actually be intent on objectivity.
Since it is can be difficult to ascertain the bias of the service that categorizes sources on the basis of bias, the ultimate value of such a service is suspect. One cannot know the motivations behind the categorizing of a specificn source according ro bias--nor should an intelligent adult simply trust such a service that purports to do so. Such a service can easily become a murky form of censorship and thought policing.
The final problem with such a service is that it would tend to apply an ideological spectrum that may be irrelevant to the subject matter at hand. It would tend to have a kind of intellectually homogenizing effect that would ultimately distort the aims of pure inquiry.
The presumptuous pairing of "left-leaning" and "high factuality" in this video should raise alarms, especially when contrasted with "right-leaning" and "low factuality". Twenty years ago, such obvious bias would have stood out as improper and even laughable. Intelligent people of any ideological persuasion would have avoided a service that espoused such heavy handed and flagrant biases. Today, this kind of thing is embraced. Very sad.
How much of this is due to the public?
Do we support ethical researchers?
Seems like only the corrupt survive.
Honestly, the Russian paper mill is not that different from how 'legitimate' authorship is determined. The real ethical violation is that the other authors weren't informed. Frankly, I would prefer to give Dr. Moneybags an authorship spot over Dr. I-Work-Down-The-Hall-But-I-sleep-With-The-Dean.
I am not surprised. I have seen this kind of academics a lot in China.
It's all fake
"Believe the science"