Peer Review and Golden Chopsticks - Sixty Symbols
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Some opinion from Professor Phil Moriarty.
What happened after the phone rang - • Peer Review (what came...
For more on the chopsticks story, it was well covered last year by blogs including www.chemistry-b... & blog.chembark.com/
I would love to hear more of Professor Moriarty's rants.
What happened next?
In case you missed the link high in the video description AND the annotation (in which case you will probably also miss this):
ruclips.net/video/fcIUhHWsqlE/видео.html
The nottinghamscience channel has long been home to extra bits from sixty symbols!
Cliff hanger! ;)
***** The problem with that annotation was that it was too unobtrusive. They should have selected red as the background (well, anything other than black) in that location.
I would to know what happened to the individual who submitted the paper. Why did they do this? Was it a joke? Did they want fame? Were they trying to prove a point weaknesses in the peer review process?
And what are the consequences for this? Won't they be dicredited? Could they face some kind of legal action? If not should or could they face legal action? Lot of obvious missing questions not discussed in these two videos.
***** I know that annotations don't work at all on my mobile device, so there's that.
*****
Yeah, you definitely said that. I just thought it was a good point, so I reiterated it with the addition of the color red.
If this bad photoshop gets through how many good photoshops get through?
The first ever Brady Haran cliffhanger... more intense than 90% of shows/movies I've ever seen, too.
I think this might be an example of an unintended consequence of "publish or perish". Making research grants and academics' employment dependent on publishing papers doesn't encourage good, honest research. It encourages publishing as many papers as possible with little regard for quality. It encourages claiming authorship despite minimal or no contribution. When people are put in a position of needing to choose between remaining employed and behaving ethically we might benefit from questioning the system that put them there. Better peer review and punishing fraudulent researchers only treats the symptoms.
I WANT THE REALLY TROUBLESOME ASPECT
ruclips.net/video/fcIUhHWsqlE/видео.html
I've repeatedly encountered reviewers (usually just one of the bunch on each review round) who are clearly just looking for any excuse to reject, grasping at farther and farther straws. Some make it fairly evident that they have competing research efforts, by asking us to add statements about how the approaches in papers they ask for citations to are unequivocally superior and should be pursued instead. One even demonstrated that they've staked their reputation on the assumption that tons of research that's being built upon is wrong, by asking us to cite several papers that had already been refuted by multiple groups, conspicuously all with one author in common. Gee, I wonder who that reviewer was?
It's cute that this is cut into two videos, but this would be far more effective for other people to link and discuss if it were in one video.
I want to link this to someone who I think would benefit from it but I also have to explain to him how to horse around to find the second video.
To the people asking why the author isn't anonymous: If it were anonymous and a peer decided it was good, they could easily say they worked on the project. Or whatever.
Would it be feasible to have a double blind peer review? So not only do the peers remain anonymous, but the paper's authors do too, at least until (if) it has been published. I suppose you might still be able to tell it was written by a friend of yours if you know exactly what they were researching but there'd be a bit more doubt, and it could lower the chances of being biased as you won't know who wrote the paper until after you've reviewed it.
More SixtySymbols videos! I've missed these!
As a regular user of the TEM and a research student dealing with similar things, i was shocked, to say the least when i saw this published last year. its unbelievable how that could pass the editor AND 2-3 reviewers! and as a sidenote, its really hard to edit TEM images due to the background noise. the magnetic lasso can only work to an extent but once the image is zoomed in, the edits become glaringly obvious.
What was the troubling aspect? YOU CAN'T LEAVE US HANGING LIKE THAT!
"For Zarquon's sake." -- I laughed so hard.
wow that was some reeeeeally bad photoshop
Bad enough to make me suspect it was intended to be that bad. Journal tolling maybe just to see if it would pass peer review.
It's mind blowing that the paper made it passed peer review.
'some are more human than others' that was a great line im gonna to use that from now on.
"For Zarquon's sake" I freaking love the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy reference!
I am waiting patiently on the edge of my seat Brady.
ruclips.net/video/fcIUhHWsqlE/видео.html
Sixty Symbols thanks Brady and hello from Adelaide.
Sixty Symbols cheers! :D
So what was the "really troublesome aspect"?
Here is how I almost missed the rest of this video: RUclips takes me to the "share" vignette when the video is over so no description. RUclips doesn't activate annotations automatically so, I have to do it manually. The only way I could see it was the top comment from sixty symbols. Close call... but understandable.
LOL!
By the way Brady... you must have quite some patience, reposting the link again and again although you posted it literally everywhere on this page haha.
As a photographer, that image was immediately hilarious.
is it possible that the paper is legit but the picture was forged and displayed as an illustration?
This is kind of unrelated to the video but I think it is an interesting question:
There are three spaceships in space. With respect to the first one, the second one and the third one are each moving at 99% of the speed of light towards each other. Now, from the point of view of the second spaceship, how fast is the third spaceship moving? Is it moving at 198% of the speed of light? In addition, lets say the third spaceship fired a laser beam in the direction it is moving. From the point of view of the third spaceship, the laser beam would shoot off into space at c. But from the point of view of the 2nd spaceship, the 3rd spaceship appears to be moving faster than c, but light moves at c from any reference frame, so it can't go faster than c. What happens to the laser beam?
Saved by the bell, Dr. Moriarty :)
As a fledgling researcher, that photoshop job done to falsify data made me throw up in my mouth a bit.
not to mention the "nanorods" aren't even on formvar in some of those sections, just hovering like magic
Check the vid description guys, there is a link to the rest of the video!
Why doesn't the journal edit your name out of the paper before the journal submits it to your peers?
That is crazy, I mean I have heard some stories about peer reviews but this is an extreme. I hope these wannabe scientists should be removed from the practice.
Genius cut there at the end.
Is Professor Moriarty from Dundalk or Louth? When he says "paper" it is the strongest Dundalk/Louth accent I've hear in a long time!
So, if the reviewer is anonymous, great. But the one providing the paper, their name should be anonymous too. That would negate favoritism or vindictive action, and then the paper can be judged on its merit.
That won't work. A scientific study is (usually) a continuation of previous work. If you publish a paper, you'll be referring to your previous papers, so one can tell who the authors are from their reference list alone.
Loved this video, particularly the cliff-hanger ending!
Thank you very much for making this video. I have been wondering for quite awhile how papers get submitted. Question though: If I don't have any real credentials in physics but have a concept, and have never written a paper before, it is acceptable to draft a paper as a general concept and submit it? I have this concept of how 9 dimensional space could work but have no idea the math behind why we 'need' them in string theory. If I simply explained the idea with some diagrams and didn't have a lot of math, and maybe even present multiple sub-concepts, would that be acceptable?
So why isn't the process anonymous in *both* directions?
*****
As I mentioned in another comment, it wouldn't work, because when you write a paper you'll be referring to your previous work. So usually it's straightforward to figure out who the authors are by looking at their references alone. In fact, referees can give themselves away too when they suggest to add references to their own papers.
Pulsar77
This is completely erroneous reasoning. What you *should* be referring to is peer reviewed papers on the subject, not just *your* previous work. Of course that's in *both* directions, unless there's so much ego involved that it's really just a pissing contest after all.
colourmegone
This has absolutely nothing to do with ego. Your research will be a continuation of your own previous work or the work of your colleagues or supervisor. Of course you'll refer to dozens of other papers, but your reference list will automatically include your own work and that of your team members. There's no way around it.
It's pretty entertaining when Prof. Moriarty gets worked up! It must make reading the newspapers a bit arduous for him though..
My dad had a paper that sat with one reviewer for seven years.
Question: Why isn't the peer review process double-blind?
exactly my question.
Even though you are not biased when taking criticism, reviewer could very well be biased.
Is the audio messed up on this? I got all everything left speaker only.
That ending was golden xD
RIP, Pr Phil Moriarty.
_“(...) scientists are human and some are more human than others.”_ ~prof. Phil Moriarty
It depends quite a bit on the field. In hydrology at least the field moves forward "one death at a time."
did. .did Phil reference hitchhikers guide in this video?
That milk on the shelf is gonna spoil if you don't pop it in the fridge!
I wanna hear what the really troublesome aspect is now :(
So the paper was withdrawn, but what about the person who submitted it? I hope
there were consequences for forging data. Too many people distrust scientists as it is, we don't people like that giving them reason to distrust.
Really like the ending - the lawyers got to him :)
Think the troublesome aspect was that an untrained professional like his daughter could see that there was something fishy going on.
wow, Its easy to see how people miss detail. Look at how many people are asking "what happened next"
So we never get to know what the *really* troublesom aspect is?
troublesome aspect is that if they had a 6 year old do it, it might have looked correct and not been noticed?
So....this is not the psycho Moriarty guy from Sherlock?
damn ending on a cliff hanger
that end was so funny hahaha
Wow I can't believe they actually thought they would get away with that.
I don't understand why you decided to split this video into two. What's the point of having the rest of the conversation, which was completely relevant in this video, cut off and stuck somewhere else?
To show people his other channel, as they may have some interest in its content.
If peer review is anonymous, is there a chance that you will be sent your own paper to review?
please help - english speaker from U.S.A. - nobble your paper?
does this mean steal from - or sabotage?
WHAT WAS THE REALLY TROUBLESOME ASPECT‽
WHAT'S THE REALLY TROUBLESOME ASPECT?!
..."hello, yes he did cut and paste the images and couldn't be arsed learning photoshop skills either!"
Why this channel has no sound ???
Ooh! Let them play Bioshock Infinite and notify them of theories of quantum locking an atom in a fixed point of space. Also notify them of Elizabeth's ability to open tears (impossible, I know, but still interesting to hear their take.)
Were the authors of this paper simply trolling?
120-130 papers? That's an impressive number!
what about the story of Newton and Leibniz
The problem with the peer review process is that it isn't filtered through FOX News first.
But then the important stuff that seems boring would be lost forever.
Moriarty's been working out!
That's crazy! Should have used the magnetic lasso tool ;-)
The people who submitted this bogus paper, do we know the motivation? Was it like a bogus patent to point out the system doesn't work, or maybe a creationist trying to show science is all lies. I'm also assuming the person(s) who submitted it will be barred from submitting new papers for review?
Bias in reviewing a paper from someone you know? If anything, I'd be much more critical, though admittedly, I'd mostly be looking out for certain things I know anyway, so there's the potential for me missing other things.
Whelp, maybe several more years until I'll be part of it all.
Do any of you know the history professor
John/Wolfgang Liebeshutez?
yea were really all human, scientists or not, taking someones word for it is proving to be increasingly difficult for me
I love that ending
this is their lawyers!!! hahahaaa
Why is the audio only on the left channel?
Ah this is only with the html5 player. Flash it's centered.
Should be anonymous in both directions. Double blind. Like medical testing.
PEER REVIEW = SCIENTISTS STROKING THEIR EGOS
Lol Moriarty. Sherlock!
So the moral of the story is that I should put "expert photoshop skills" in the relevant skills column of my resume for nanotech research group?
Man, I can't even get started with peer review! I'm a highschool senior and somewhat of a scientific genius, but I can't get my paper on quantum gravity reviewed, because I'm not at a university yet! I could be the next Einstein here! Or not (probably); but we'll see soon.
Brady, I have not had audio on any of your numberphile or Sixty Symbols videos for a couple months. I've reported the issue to youtube repeatedly and they haven't fixed it. I want you to know you're missing views!
What is your set up - I have a small number of people reporting this and I cannot figure out what you have in common?
Sixty Symbols Newest version of Google Chrome on a PC (Windows 7). The problem goes away on Internet Explorer (so I guess I'll watch your videos there for now!)
From RUclips forum comments it seems to be a common problem (though different channels for different people) that RUclips has no helpful advice for.
zwussow Disable all your extensions and see if it works.
You could try using firefox (better than IE, right?) or using an extension that allows you to watch youtube videos in a different format until youtube has gotten it fixed. Also be sure to report it, so they can work on it.
Ides385 Good idea, but no luck. Thanks
If you have the name "Moriarty," you are destined to be an evil genius
And the end??
Guess the troublesome aspect would be if people like that weren't incompetent, and actually faked it in a good way.
But who was phone?
It was Roger. Didn't you watch the other video?
The reviewer is anonymous. Shouldn't the author also be anonymous?
the video is talking about peer view, not about publishing. of course when published the author's name should be attached, otherwise scientists would be trolling all over the place.
That is a SHAM! No doubt. However, in the 'Publish or perish' era, researchers are put under tremendous pressure to produce more and more papers to improve their standing, who also happen to have leverages of postdocs and grad students further down the chain. Even if experiments were carried out and carefully logged or reported in a reproducible manner, there are possibilities for some frailties of conduct or erroneous misreadings of the interpretation of findings. Peer reviewers also tend to overlook lapses in papers because they know academic careers of the authors hinges upon number of publications and are reluctant to expose faults, hopefully not as blatant as in the video. I think reviewers might be seeking an act of mercy when it's their time to publish and that they would be excused when the tables are turned. "Judge not for ye shall be judged!" LOL
Peer review is a hit and miss process. I've always gotten complete nuts who inquire about everything
Professor Moriarty?! I guess he hates the shit out of Sherlock Holmes...
@the guys who pasted rods and called them chopsticks:
FFS scientists, get your act together! You're giving the laymen a reason to not trust science!
Sixty Symbols nottinghamscience why did you split up the ...
I didnt mean it I take it all back hahaha
Terribru, considering that many such "genius" papers actually pass the review. Remember the infamous borat paper?
Zarquon!
I know that this is sad, but who in their right mind would want to fabricate something like that?
This guy is the best.
Taking the excretory fluid.
what a diabolic laugh :D