Video

How do you get the scientific community and journals change their baseline practices? Is there a committee/professional organization that defines these?

What is the point of academic journals if they don’t already do all of this??!! All this time, effort and resources that could be used to do ACTUAL RESEARCH but has to be wasted on this - not to mention all the funding that they take from honest academics!! For just the autism article ALONE The Lancet and everyone involved should go “straight to jail!” 😡

I recommend a future video dive into Avi Loeb, because he publishes waaay too much to not be suspicious

The first thing that should be done is to pay reviewers for their time and have a grading system for reviewers. Reviewers are incentivied to spend as little time as possible on reviewing a paper. Reviewing time should be mandated on an institutional level and paid for by the cost to publish fee by the for-profit publishing industry. Yes, this may lead to higher cost of publishing and slower publishing, but also fewer fraud cases and less retraction rate of papers.

you said there is no infrastructure to check. but there is, it's the peer review. Peer review is the source of all the corruption

Are you aware Pfizer vaccinated the control group after 6 months? A deadly sin in science.

Guy is more evil than jeffrey dommer

Bro wtf they're trying to kill your video, it's buffering every few seconds on 480p for no reason

can you please make a video on how to spot ai generated text in papers? My professors are saying "it's so obvious by the way ut is formated" but i can't really see it. Can you please share your thoughts on how to spot it?

Pete, how about a video talking about how the journals make money. Researchers have to publish to justify their existence. Journal ask peer reviewers to work for free, and either authors pay a charge to get it published or the journal requires payment from readers. Researchers sign over their copyright and often pay for the privilege

In the process of submitting a manuscript and yes, you simply have to declare that you have no conflict of interest. Basically you pinky promise.

No idea how you can not publish the data set but somehow your findings are 'peer reviewed'

Really annoying background music (too loud) places this vid firmly in the TLDR category. (Too Long, Didn't Watch, so TLDW)

One more: pseudo-science. People who perform studies wrong, or apply methods in improper way.

Would love you to do a deep dive into the James Cook University Marine Biology fiasco. What Danielle Dixon did was absolutely criminal and their "research" is being weaponised to destroy the Australian commercial and even recreational fishing industries.

How do you know if a scientists is a liar? They are published.

I know I'm stating the bleeding obvious, but AI is going to make scientific fraud easier, more often and more devious.

Do not confuse medical with magical

If that guy wasn't wearing a labcoat, he could easily be mistaken for a lunatic hermit with a shack in the woods.

Excellent video.

Maybe they can sign an honesty pledge at the top of the submission process. I have heard it makes people be more honest 😂

Should all scientists have curiosity? Should all scientists understand really basic physics and notice weird things? Has 9/11 affected the world? When and where have "experts" discussed the distribution of steel down the Twin Towers? Ask ChatGPT: The distribution of steel in a skyscraper more than 1,000 feet tall is generally such that the majority of the steel is concentrated in the lower sections of the building. This is because the lower portions must bear the weight of the entire structure above them, requiring more robust and stronger materials. Here is a generalized breakdown of how the steel might be distributed by percentage in each 10% segment of the building's height: 1. **Bottom 10% (0-10%)**: Approximately 25-30% of the total steel 2. **10-20%**: Approximately 15-20% of the total steel 3. **20-30%**: Approximately 10-15% of the total steel 4. **30-40%**: Approximately 8-10% of the total steel 5. **40-50%**: Approximately 7-8% of the total steel 6. **50-60%**: Approximately 5-7% of the total steel 7. **60-70%**: Approximately 4-5% of the total steel 8. **70-80%**: Approximately 3-4% of the total steel 9. **80-90%**: Approximately 2-3% of the total steel 10. **Top 10% (90-100%)**: Approximately 1-2% of the total steel These percentages are illustrative and can vary depending on the specific design, structural requirements, and architectural choices of the building. The key point is that the lower sections require significantly more steel to support the structure, while the amount of steel needed decreases as you move higher up the building. - ChatGPT ChatGPT must be in on the conspiracy. I had no idea what the response would be before asking the question. 😮😂

Like Dr Nefaurios or Like Climate Change Scientiest?

So WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GROWING HEALTH PROBLEMS OF THE WORLDS PEOPLE?!

My female Dr's last name is Levine...she would rather put me on ENDLESS AMOUNTS OF ANTIDEPRESSANTS, USELESS"TO MY BIOLOGY"INJECTIONS THAT HAVE NEVER WORKED... INSINUATE IM MENTALLY UNSTABLE BECAUSE IM IN PAIN WHERE I HAD A SPINAL FUSION AND DECOMPRESSION. STANFORD SENT ME HOME WITHOUT PAIN MEDS AFTER SPINAL SURGERY!!!

Stanford health has become narcissistic and arrogant...they DONT TREAT, the study and insinuate you're MENTALLY UNSTABLE if you don't go along with them... they're willing to put me through years of misery and hell, instead of listening to what I want to try!!!

I think the number one way to catch bad science ought be replication. Requiring independent replication of results will be a much more reliable way of finding bad science and bad scientist than counting publications, auditing for conflicts of interest or investigating images. Theories built on bad data will not stand up under replication regardless or whether the data were fraudulently made up, the result of unintentional methodical problems or bad luck.

Do they refer to themselves as a scientist? Bonus points if additional modifiers such as 'behavioral' 'political' 'social' etc.

Wanna find bad scientists? Just look in the heath, nutrition and climate scientists…

After hearing about Harvard’s disgraced ex-dean, I am not surprised scammers fill the top-rung of the healthcare industrial complex.

I'm aware of Wakefield's conflict of interest and the problems with his work but I am perpetually amused by all the bleating labeling him AntiVax when he was actually trying to hawk a competing vaccine all along.

I publish dozen or more papers a year, though only a few are first/sole author. In planetary science we often work in broad flat teams of individual 'independent' scientists associated with space missions (without the more feudal lab head/minion hierarchy associated with a lab). The mission data are contractually obliged to be publicly available.

Thank you Pete.

We are seeing how people that lack integrity and honesty can easily game the system. And that's just not in publishing scientific papers. It's epidemic throughout our society. Great video!

DP!

Do you "first author"? I find it very surprising you didn't specify this. Last authors, for example, are typically lab/science area heads who will appear on every paper authored by their team.

There is an easy solution for "data upon request." Just request the data. One group, doing this regularly, could F up a lot of fraud.

I effectively spent a year on my MS thesis. Under other circumstances, I could maybe have broken it into 3 or 4 papers, max.

Data should be made available to readers definitely because how else will we verify results? 200 papers a year by 22 academics is crazy. Must be AI generated.

Feynmann could consistently publish surprising results...

Hi Pete, it would be really good if you could do an investigation into the Cass report. Sounds like quite a lot of fraud / bad science / agenda-pushing happened in it.

Ironically, this video should be a paper, along with the other great suggestions within the comments. Then, it should be made into a product - that automatically notifies of the easier-to-spot criteria like no. of papers published per year, COI issues, etc. A lot of these scientists and joirnals get away with scientific fraud because it is mostly hidden and covered. Ventilating even the suspicion of fraud (putting the burden of proof on the scientist and the journal) may be best, albeit radical way waybto handle scientific fraud.

Ultimately, it's up to scientists to conduct replication studies to check each other. The system isn't incentivizing replication remotely enough.

Governmental conflicts of interest definitely deserve more attention. When most people talk about conflicts of interest, they often only talk about corporate conflicts of interest. Governmental grants are often seen as a public expense and represent the interest of taxpayers, in other words, you and me. But in reality, the ruling class often holds the ultimate decision of who gets the fund, which can go against the public interest in a lot of ways. While it is not strictly academic, are you interested in fraud in healthcare reviews from governmental institutions (e.g. the notorious Cass Review and others)? Speaking of corporate conflicts of interest, I think another neglected area is weight loss research, which almost always makes their results more appealing than they actually are.

Bigger problem are the fake PhD s sold to politicians (usually from some developing country) who then use these "qualifications " in order to create a profile of a really knowledgeable guy/woman. Examples from Greece are the PM Mitsotakis who has a phd from an American university, but all his exam and research papers are copy pasted from others.,or the ex Athens mayor Bakoyiannis who s been called to "teach" in harvard(in some side program they have,but is advertised in Greece as "he got a tenure in Harvard", which of course is a lie. Unfortunately universities are just financial and propaganda instrument. Long gone are the days of Paris May 1968, or" Strawberry fields"(the film). Today education (especially higher education) is a market of hopes for the young consumers/workers/future slaves of corporations and funds who own every university . You didnt like Free education, you wanted the capitalists way,waving away your chances for social mobility. You didnt want to pay the teachers a decent salary,continiously training them and updating educational material not according to some "faith" or need of some corporation ,but based on real science done with public funds . In other words,capitalism broke science.

Viewing your presentations creates in me a desire more and more fraud to be committed so that you have ever more content to present..but then there is already more fraud than you can cover.

History Fraud is everywhere too. You would not believe how bad.

Another case of fraud and pseudoscience to look at is the CASS Review and how they used bias and misinformation to harm marginalized people and push a harmful agenda.

Crazy when it also goes I to medical. So much crao these days. Money rules. Science has become a joke. Trust nothing as it's all garbage.

Isn't "Peer Review" supposed to catch most of these things? Isn't that the whole idea of peer-reviewed studies?