Hi! Welcome to my channel. My name is Pete and I am a Behavioral Scientist. I am trained in both psychology and behavioral science and I specialize in the science of habits! I make videos about all of those things, and make new videos every single week. Hope you enjoy your time here!
I remember Eric Weinstein pointing out how authorship of papers has grown to the point where almost every paper has dozens of authors and produce less and less useful results, and that there haven't been any fundamental breakthroughs really in physics (or for that matter chemistry and medicine) in decades. I remember when I started there was a rule where you use "et al" when there are 3 or more authors, can't remember the last time I saw a paper with less than 5 authors, let alone 3
I’m about to start a PhD focused on detecting these fake papers! I’m so excited to be exposing this fraudulent system. Pretty sure my supervisor, Prof Jennifer Byrne, had a hand in getting a few on that list retracted. It’s disturbing how wide spread this is and how few journals are willing to act on it.
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...?
I do like this.... especially the pleasure triggers...Easier to exercise while wearing nice kit.... Easier to go swimming when I wear an expensive swimming cap I think makes me look sporty (hahaha). I agree with all this as in many ways I have managed to trick the toddler into making me do the grownup routine things :-)
Well are you aware that IDENTITY THEFT IS NOT ILLEGAL IN MALTA # Unregistered Power of Attorneys are rampantly provided by corrupt Malta government staff, lawfirms, Notaries for a %share of the profits made via the use in illegally accessing Bank accounts, properties, assets including the use of the NSO GROUP HACKWARE PEGASUS SPYWARE and abusing the Malta Communications Authority equipment/MITA
Been diagnosed ME/CFS for about 15 years. Was forced through graded excercise, CBT and pacing by the pain clinic and ME nurse. Made things worse to the point I developed FND/FMD/f-Dystonia. I couldn't walk anymore. And had to learn how again, which took 1-2 years. Because I also have a (sort of) POTS dx. Probably have MCAS (but can't get tested). And have hEDS dx'd. So, not only do I experience PEM, but I'm also exercise intolerant. Which is a wild thing to balance. There is exercise/activity that makes all my co-existing conditions worse and has to be avoided. There is exercise/activity that helps 1 thing, but harms another, so I have to limit it. And there's exercise/activity I can do. Sometimes. As long as it's balanced with plenty of rest. And I accept that I will experience PEM symptoms the following 1-3 days. And plan accordingly. But, I went from regularly sleeping for 72hr stretches. To being able to do 2-3hrs of dance classes across a week. It took 9 years. And the PACE criteria made it go slower, not faster. ...Then, I fell down the stairs twice and had to start again. So it's not a 1 time and you're cured process. It involves setbacks. And you have to start from square 1 over, and over, and over again. It's hard. I'm not back at how bad I was a decade ago. But I'm nowhere near were I got myself to. Despite medical intervention. Not because of it. The PACE trial was an expensive disaster. And it ruined so many people's lives.
The plagiarism case seems very inconsequential to say the least… her testimony regarding student code of conduct involving statements calling for violence is the most damaging considering she was the head of the DEI department. From an academic standpoint, any of the plagiarism allegations should have simply been addressed with a statement clarifying that she should have done a better job clearly citing others works and use it as a model for students and others for how to properly cite your sources. It didn’t seem like she was passing off the work as her own as much as she didn’t do a good job clearly defining when she was directly pulling from other papers or was just paraphrasing.
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.
This paper mill thing is obviously horrible, but it would not be possible if the field of preclinical cancer research wasn't in the disgraceful state that is today. The paper mill papers are bad, but worse still are the thousands and thousands of utterly garbage preclinical cancer research articles (that follow the same basic formula for the title and "story" of the paper - x inhibits y in z cancer through [insert ver] zz) that are produced by ordinary researchers with no egregious misconduct involved - the papers are just of terrible quality. As a cancer research scientist, it is truly disheartening to see the state of the field. But I don't blame the researchers really, instead I blame the deranged incentive structure of academic research and the misguided obsession on quantity and superficial "quality" of the journal they're published in, rather than the rigor and scientific validity of the research itself.
We are much more sophisticated today. We permit physicians to destroy children while they are still in the womb. If the child reaches pubescence, they can receive puberty blockers, which wreak havoc on the child’s endocrinology. In school, they are brainwashed on how to be emotionally triggered whenever they feel unsafe. They learn they are upright primates, just another animal on the earth. They believe they come from a meaningless “goo to you by way of the zoo.” If the child survives these hurdles, they get to live in constant fear and soul-crushing guilt for destroying the planet. Yes, we have progressed much since the days of the lobotomy.
ABC Australia may at one time in the distant past be considered left wing....decidedly not anymore. We regretfully live with the willful political degradation and almost disintegration of the national broadcaster.
7:50 nope except for Kliiiiniikum you pronounce that very well and Klinikum wasn't far of but you didn't emphasize the I's correctly. I'd give it a 6,8/10 for a native speaker and a 9,2/10 for foreigners.
Lancet should be considered disgraced by publishing this. That overlap issue alone between study inclusion and successful improvement is ludicrous and makes Lancet out to be an incompetent joke. And since this is all about fatigue (energy levels), was there no attention paid to the fuel for all human energy output: the food people eat?
I thought that in order to publish a scientific article, the paper had to be reviewed several times by a whole board of editors, how did that pass all the process?
This sort of thing and the reproducibility crisis are why many of us balked when told to 'trust the science' - the scientists are (as a whole) simply untrustworthy. Without thorough overview and vigorous punishments for malfeasance in science (**NO** sacred cows) you'll end up with zero trust as somebody's career ambitions can easily be placed ahead of the welfare of thousands or millions of people. As it stands today science is dead and you're more likely to get the correct answer by distrusting rather than trusting a peer-reviewed paper.
nice video! peer review situation is both funny and worrying. but 9:01 that's not the case anymore. he's probably using ancient gpt3.5 model which is a joke. use GPT4o/claude3 opus/gemini 1.5/ llama 3 70B or (405 B comes out) and like tens of model are now all way better than 3.5
This video by Pete was frankly abysmal. I think that during a pandemic, we need doctors who understand epidemiology - and Dr. Didier Raoult, whatever you think, is one of the most experienced. Have you seen his CV? But the drug in question is in the public domain, and there was not money to be made there. Also, I agree with @Rubafix989 that Dr. Raoult went against the mainstream media and the official narrative. He is not a diplomat, he'd be the first one to admit it. Personally, I was flabbergasted to hear that doctors in France were threatened to lose their right to practice medicine if they prescribed a certain drug, because it is not the place of the gov to tell doctors what to do. Very early on, there were French doctors on YT, making videos, saying "watch out, this is weird" - en francais, evidemment. When you're on a plane, you don't want bureaucrats to pester the pilot. They even demolished Dr. Luc Montagnier, may he rest in peace. He was a Nobel Prize, no less. Who do they think they are?
You don’t seem to know your own sources well enough. “I think is called…” for one person. “…from now on I’ll call the sleuths.” If these are your sources have some respect to learn your script well enough to know the names of the people who actually did the work. You told the journals to step you. You step up!
So people complaining about not being published elsewhere; If there was a publication that would publish this, why would you complain about those other ones having more stringent standards? And if you have tried to get published by this specific publication and failed to... that says more about your work than if they accepted it.
