Thanks. I was about to add that comment as well. And for others interested in the history element here, check out the book "The Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America" by Margaret O'Mara. Another great book in. this venue is "Chip War: The Fight for the World's Most Critical Technology" by Chris Miller.
I'm a material scientist, and semiconductors are very important to my line of work. The Schön Scandal is arguably the most significant scandal that I know of in my field. My father was at IBM when he saw this play out in real time. Its a story I never get tired of hearing from him.
Man I wanna hear your father tell the story could you interview him for it or could we communicate some way that I could hear it. I'm not a creator or anything just a curious mind.
Hey! Appreciate being linked and shouted-out here, but it does feel a bit weird to reword my video's title like this. I don't have a monopoly on this subject by any means, but you're not the only other channel who has done that lol For those who want the most direct source of info on this scandal I would recommend reading Eugenie Reich's book Plastic Fantastic!
Not sure what was special about your title? The comments are full of support for you but you need to make a big deal about a similar title AND you definitely were credited?? We'll be on this plagiarism boat for years now...
By 0:30 there’s already several mistakes. The comments mention some of them, but one I don’t see mentioned, Hendrik didn’t work in “transistors”, he just happened to claim to make one, his area of study was organics.
1) Jan is totally guilty 2) Batlogg is not clean. He's got a postdoc with Nobel level results, and he doesn't go in the lab? That means he's a former scientist, and now just a tenured educrat in our administration heavy university system. (my advisor was in the late late night all the time, pre tenure, ...but mostly to keep me from breaking stuff) 3) Peer Review: the referee comments and revisions need to be made public for forensic analysis 4) My aforementioned advisor, when queried about a publishing in Nature/Science, just snickered, "no I want to publish in a science journal, not a porno mag".
That might be one step too harsh, I've just thought of them as coffee-table magazines for dentists' and doctors' waiting-rooms. But the general evaluation of those mags are correct. One doesn't go there to get useful information.
@@richardokeefe7410 well, regarding the quantum entanglement measurements, which have since won a Nobel, he said: quantum mechanics works, we’ve known that for 100 years. He was into far more difficult things.
@@KitagumaIgen I mean that's cute & all but all my life in doctor + dentist offices I've usually seen broadsides like People or sometimes The New Yorker magazine but you are obviously smarter than I am therefore must be correct despite the factual wrongness of your joke. The lack of reflection + insight in some commenters here is really staggering. Intellectual vanity & the over-valuing of intelligence as a quality untethered from other qualities & contempt for "the dumber ones" are among the attitudes that perpetuate the culture of fraud in academia.
Bobby Broccoli deserves way more credit than a shout-out at the end of your video and link at the bottom of the video description if his videos were your only source on this topic. You mention him, but you don't cite any sources. You were in academia, right? You should know that's not cool.
If you check the description of the video, he cited Bobby Broccoli's video and he gave him more than just a shout out. He declared Bobby Broccoli's video as a major source. As an academic, Pete Judo provided a bit of his own insight from his own perspective, but didn't dive into it too much because that's Bobby Broccoli's forte. I fail to see what more Pete Judo could do here.
12:44 This point and the way you present it is EXTREMELY similar to an interview with one of the people who was involved in investigating this fraud. Plagiarism is not a road you want to go down; be careful.
I think the author is always the primary culprit but I think peer review is the main issue. It’s a label that says “don’t question this. It was already questioned and verified!” It’s a false sense of security. Letting people say whatever they want without a filter makes everyone more skeptical, which is good imo.
Generally, peer reviewed doesn't mean "don't question this." (except maybe in pure mathematics). If you or others think so, you have misunderstood. Published articles are being questioned, discussed and examined all the time. Peer review means, according to the assessment of the reviewers, that appropriate scientific methods have been applied to reach the conclusions, the quality of the research is up to the standard required by the journal, and the paper is reasonably well written. This doesn't mean mistake has not been made, mistake has been discovered, no fraud was committed, our current methods and knowledge are perfect, etc. We all know reviewers have limited knowledge, skills and time to check everything.
@JS-oh2dp My point is it's exactly not used that way. I worked in engineering, physical science, and statistics research for more than 20 years. Nobody I know regard peer reviewed papers as "don't question them." Not in practice and not formally.
@@sunway1374 my point wasn’t that it is SUPPOSED to be used that way, it’s that it IS used that way but a lot of people. Maybe not by the people who are intimately familiar with it but that isn’t where the misconceptions are coming from. The misconceptions come from the broader public, which is important when science is involved in making policy. There have been so many arguments I’ve seen that have boiled down to “my point is supported by X article and it is PEER REVIEWED which means objectively correct”
@ryanthornton3556 Like i said if you or anyone else regard peer review papers as irrefutable you have misunderstood the use of peer review. The label is put there incorrectly. Your original comment is criticising peer review. The journals, the authors, the reviewers and the scientific community do not put that label there. That was my point.
@@sunway1374 it’s fair to say it isn’t peer reviewers fault for its reputation but that it is the fault of people who misunderstand it. I don’t misunderstand it, I never said it was irrefutable. I said that’s the perception. Though, I would argue that the system/people involved aren’t fully without blame. There is an underlying elitism about peer review that I think contributes to this misconception. It’s like a lie they don’t promote but don’t seem to do a lot in the way to disclaim. Though, I would also argue there is a problem with the system besides its reputation. Peer review is supposed to at least say “yes, this is reasonable” but there are countless cases of data being so ludicrous it’s like the reviewer didn’t even read it or check the data. So, yes, it’s a misconception that isn’t pushed by the peer reviewers and is a clear misunderstanding but 1. It isn’t disclaimed enough (imo, that is subjective) and 2. It does have issues worthy of criticism but maybe that’s moving the goal post.
neighbor and neighbor? I am Canadian residing in USA. Check and cheque? Once questioned by USA professor on “piqued” as a word (just from curiosity 😏).
According to Google : “ Transister was a British-American alternative rock band formed in late 1995 in Los Angeles.” . Lol. I know it’s just a typo, but I had to look it up for fun. Always love your videos, this a great one, it’s actually related to my field of research.
Never heard of them , were they any good ?, it seems the alternative bandwagon that take 90s rock by storm passed them by because again never heard of them and as an adolescent was into this music like balls deep
I am a physicist with a Ph.D. in materials... and I take my dedication as a reviewer very seriously, so I found several mistakes in a few articles; in one of them, I wrote, "How you are claiming this result, that is contrary of all the data that we publish in the last 30 years" ... He answers me with a paper of my director, paper that I study by years. I found that he didn't understand what my professor wrote. Also, I have a review paper. It was horrible work because of all the papers that I read; only 30% had data that I could use, and several of them, around 20%, had fake data.. How could they publish that work? In experimental physics... In materials like this case, it is normal to find fake data. The reviewers usually don't want to revise all the data and the equations... I had problems with lower claims and usually answered, "I include the raw data of those experiments that you could follow to reach that conclusion; if you find a mistake, we can study together... and if is necessary, I could provide you with the samples to measure by your self" the answer is always the same "I accept your claims." It is time-consuming, but I repeat several samples and measure again to find out if I made a mistake with the previous one.
20% of the papers have fake data (and that is only out of the ones that actually included data)? That is serious. It seems like we need another system of reviewing studies for publishing. It seems like we currently rely on a system that assumes that PhDs are some kind of special humans who never lie, instead of the obvious fact that they are normal human beings who have the same preponderance to lie to advance their station in life as any other human being. A degree has NO bearing on your morality and doesn't magically transform you into someone who'd never lie, all groups of people will have a large percent who is willing to lie if it benefits them, especially when they feel they won't get caught
We have lots of studies showing the astonishingly high percentage of people willing to cheat when they believe there's no chance to get caught. We need to view this as a part of human nature and change the review process to one standard process followed 100% of the time that takes just being a human (and all of the associated faults that come with that) into account and not just "assume" scientists are special unique humans. All study data should be reviewed for statistical anomalies or evidence of fabrication, and be tested for replicability. Submitters can pay for this or their university can pay, and there can be a fund set up for independent scientists which can be contributed to by all major institutions and donors who value science
oh man, that's hell of a sloppy attempt at capitalizing on BobbyBroccoli's work, and not even spelling his name correctly! tell as more about dodgy practices and plagiarism.
Yeah but it seems like he just took Bobby's vid and copied it. He told the story in the same order eith the same details and used analogies that were direct copies of Bobby Ex: doing dishes less frequently than hendrix published papers. Seems like he just watched and then condensed without actually adding anything to the story... which is sad cause I like this channel.
Yes i also felt the same, maybe Bobby's series is so detailed so every body endup referring to him, but he did give him the credit so it seems fine@@carpetman9191
And misses the most important context of that era which Bobby goes into and explains why so many people might be willing to believe him for so long. Average day, average scientists in an average lab and I don't Schön would have gotten as far as he did. It's part of why Bobby's documentary is so long but skipping the societal context means you aren't going to understand the complexity of people's motivations.
After watching your videos regarding Francesca Gino, I thought,” but could this also happen with more verifiable science ?” It seems it most certainly can ! Thanks for covering these topics .
You should check out Bobby Broccoli's channel if you enjoy this topic. He has a deep dive on Schön that is fantastic and has covered other science scandals. Much longer but great at digging into different ways scientists try to get away with fraud.
Well yes and no. It did happen, but the scam was uncovered after a relatively short time. Compare that to Gino, for whom it took 10 years to be discovered, and only because of rather obvious errors she committed. If Gino had payed a bit more attention when faking her data, she would not have been found out.
@@terriplays1726 I agree. The errors were almost too obvious, in my opinion. I do find it encouraging to know there are those who decided to scrutinize the work.
An interesting aspect of this is that Bell Labs was on the verge of bankruptcy when this happened. They were cutting staff left and right, this means that the people they kept were the ones making discoveries. It was like publish or perish turned up to eleven.
He also said that transistor density doubles every year, not computing power. It was Dennard that said speed doubles, but that broke down in the early 2000s
Fantastic video! I can't wait for more! Edit: As a side note, I really like the idea of using a story like this to dig into the actual science of--in this case--transistors and learn a little bit about them. It not only gives us a sense of why this topic is is so important, but also has a bit of an educational side to it as well.
@@valeriadominguez7370 This may be true for whatever your field is, but standards for citation vary widely between different disciplines. By your definition, most if not all publication in fields as varied as e.g. Medicine, Sociology, Biology, Japanese Studies,... would be guilty of plagiarism.
It’s weird that to me it feels like their was less push back on the whistle blower in this case than in some of the cases you’ve gone over in terms of cognitive science. I can’t help but suspect that much of it has to do with in the transistor case funders are more interested in the tangible product while in the cognitive science cases, funders were more interested in the findings fitting a narrative
In physics, there are less confounding factors and experiments should be readily replicable. If it's not, then it's immediately obvious even if it takes some time to dethrone the fraud.
Yeah not cool. Pete has submitted comments for corrections to this video 2 months ago but has ignored this comment from BB for over a month. Happier to leave it up than address it? He accepted BBs work was a major source but... Ripped the title exactly, put the citation at the end rather than the beginning and ignored all the top comments on this video calling foul? Yeah messed up considering a major theme of the channel is ethics in academia. Came here from your video on the Cornell professor where you chastised his approach to quantity over quality. Hope you address this because it does fail the litmus test for piggybacking another's hard work. No hate to the Pete but, feels sketch to me.
I’m never going to look at Nature and Science Journals in the same way again. It makes me wonder what other “garbage” or questionable studies, treatises, and data they have lent their erstwhile reputation to. Thank you for citing and sharing about BobbyBroccoli’s channel as well!
There is a way to cheat and not get caught. It just means your research has to be next to useless... The more significant it is, the more scrutiny there will be as significant findings usually point towards "there is lots of money to be made". It is weird how this guy too is very intelligent and yet doesn't understand that very simple equation: the more attention you get the more likely it is that you will get caught.
Pete would definitely benefit from reviews of his videos by an editor. Just to mention the most obvious: 1. spelling of transistors (multiple). 2. spelling of Christian Kloc (at 3:48). 3. attribution of career of Gordon Moore (1:43). and 4. spelling of responsible (14:58)
"Transistor = Switch" Clearly digital-centric. Transistors can do more than just turn ON or OFF. There are analog circuits, where the transistor is varied between on and off. No, not to be confused quantum phenomena of being both, but actually a very real ability to vary the conductivity. In the old days of electronics, it was almost all analog. You know, your grandparent's radios and TVs. All analog circuits, for decades. When I heard this guy's name, Bobbybroccoli came to mind, as he's done a real in depth coverage of this fraud. He also made another science fraud video, on stem cell research, from Korea (hwang woo-suk).
The Journals are a major factor, as they don’t hold enough responsibility on the PEER REVIEWERS. It used to be that Peers held each other accountable. Now, it is a simple smokescreen which allows each other to Publish poor quality work. In Medicine, publications are produced daily, peer reviewed by people who have no basic understanding of the process and/or methodology. PRP publications, for example.
2:20 Germanium used to be used too. It just sucks at being a transistor. Granted, if you are into music, some people swear by germanium transistors being better in certain music hardware than silicon
Moore was a co-founder of Intel. He was never associated with IBM, as he was considered too young during his lifetime, and this remained unchanged even after his death.
@5:45 . . . yeah, but at least my dishes have been peer reviewed! I managed to finally complete my thesis on the advantages of leaving the pots to soak using real world data, despite my flatmates efforts to sabotage my experiments and get me evicted. Now I'm employed at a prestigious hotel where I have been putting my findings to work, so my research has borne fruit, and is making a real difference in the world!
The only people who blindly trust the peer-review system are those who don't really understand it. Even independent research that corroborates (or negates) a previous study should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.
In my opinion at least Batlogg has to bear significant responsibility. It happened on his watch - "the buck stops there." Part of the RESPONSIBILITY of supervisors is to pay enough attention to be confident their subordinates are doing their jobs right, and that applies not only in science but in every human endeavor. The guy who just made the crystals? I can let him off - he was really just providing a service to the other people, and he provided it. He's not the one whose position calls for him to maintain oversight. These things absolutely should "cut upward," but I don't think they necessarily should cut sideways unless particular circumstances of the situation warrant it. Regarding the journals? Well, ultimately they are paying the price of having been party to this. But the onus of making that happen is on US. When do we decide that maybe Nature ISN'T quite so prestigious as we've regarded it in the past? That's a decision for us to make - all of us. Nature rises and falls on our assessment of it. It's like when government officials do bad things and then get reelected - that becomes the responsibility of the VOTERS. If we accept it and put up with it, then we are the ones who have failed.
At 11:28, a picture of Professor Sohn appears over the damning details of Schon's work. That juxtaposition, along with the phonetic similarities between their names, introduced alarming confusion for me.
Transistors are not only used as switches (in the saturation and cutoff region of the transistor), but as amplifiers when the transistor is biased in its linear region. Transistors weren't even used as switches at first.
I can't get over the fact that he is one of the smartest beings on the planet, a scientist, but he made a stupid mistake by copying and pasting the exact graph in his paper. Isn't it straightforward to comprehend that this could lead people to realize he committed data fraud? (assuming he planned his way to publishing the fraudulent paper)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised when the hard sciences say that social science is full of fraud and they're too pure to ever have something like that happen, but God it's frustrating to hear as someone in social science who works really hard to do quality data analysis and be respectful of the people in working with. And then hearing about all this nonsense.
Back in the late 1980s, my Biophysics professor warned us that a lot of published research was sh*t, even in "reputable" journals. The other lower tier publications exist just to pad resumes.
There is a very rare, but more rigorous, process than peer review: peer auditing. An independent 3rd party must audit the actual experimental setup, data collection, and data processing for acceptance. It's expensive and inconvenient, so it's likely reserved for cases where the scientists don't trust their own results, like the "faster-than-light" neutrinos finding that turned out to be due to a damaged fibre optic line.
In experimental sciences and engineering, reviewing whether the data makes sense or not is tricky. Often, the reviewers simply do not have the resources to verify them, and they are also simply very expensive. They simply rely on the honesty of the authors. Sad reality.
IBM was founded by Charles Flint as the fusion of four existing companies. The result was renamed to IBM by T. J. Watson. I had the privilege of working under Dr Cuthbert Hurd. As he told it, he tried to persuade T. J. Watson that computers were a good idea; T. J. Watson said to him "If you sell them, we'll build them", Dr Hurd found some customers, and the rest is history. History that doesn't involve Gordon Moore. When Gordon Moore was born, IBM had been called IBM for five years already.
Pete.. small fact-check thing: Moore was the co-founder of Intel, where he sat on the board for a very long time. His paper, called "Cramming more components into integrated circuits" is very short, and is about the idea that integrated circuits (at the time being a chip with some operational function) would become smaller, and that this would allow.. more components to be put in these varied specialisations of integrated circuits, which then would increase the processing power. His company would go on to ditch that idea completely, and instead move on to the model that made Intel the company it is, where complex circuits are replaced with higher clocked and fewer generic circuits. In other words, "Moore's law" applies to a concept that was ditched by Intel, and arguably caused the split in Fairchild that led to founding AMD. Meanwhile, Ibm and ARM have been working in areas where Moore's suggestion is more relevant. But the whole paradigm that modern computers are based on is not even remotely connected to Moore's thesis: the idea that computing power doubles every now and then, and storage space grows exponentially and so on - complete bonk. Does not happen, it's a marketing blurb. Other than that, Claudine Gay argued that opposition to sionism, to christianity, to whatever, and even very upsetting opposition to something - may very well not be a problem, nor that it should be banned from debate. In certain contexts, it is possible to argue even very distasteful things (although the culprits here were not actually calling for eradicating jews). At a university, that is not a controversial statement, to simply say that the ceiling for censorship is extremely high. And that without considering the context the statements were given, you cannot possibly just blanket condemn something as attacks on jews, or making the campus unsafe (which is what was alleged). But it is a controversial statement in the US congress and senate, never mind in the hearing that you clipped from, where criticising Israel shall not be excused "in any context". So while I'm sure the accusations "sound" worse than the plagiarism (that was basically bullshit, like you point out), they are flatly the result of the efforts of an Israel lobby that then brags about having gotten rid of Gay - in public. "This is what happens when you are silent and weak against anti-semitism", said the Israel on Campus Coalition, openly arguing for banning any opposition to not just Israel, but any pro-Israeli demonstrations. And an academic that just says "well, we should probably not ban speech, whether it's this or that" is considered a threat to that.
wow, this is sooo huge, this is like a movie. a bit scary though... .i wish the journals would have an academic datawarehouse to make it easier to verify the data
I like that this example was not in social science. It was obvious that the other examples you show on social sciences had nothing to do with being "social" but that it was rather just a matter of "scientists" faking data while no one verify their works.
The only reason I cared to watch your channel is because of the fraud drama. So I was more than happy that you decided to focus on the flaws in academia. I think you are benefiting science as a whole thus have a much bigger positive effect.
A couple of corrections. The word Transistor comes from the words transfer and resistor, ,hence the OR not IR as the last letters. Also the first transistors were made from Germanium, not Silicon.
Yes, but he doesn’t own the subject lol. Plus I can see that some people don’t like long form and want a shorter video, but I’m just enjoying both these guys content right now :)
Yes, and Peter Judo explicitly references Bobby Broccoli's series and links part 1 of Broccoli's series in the description. He also justifies the current video by highlighting the fact that much of the comments on his previous videos were claiming that fraud only happens in social sciences, then extrapolating to broader questions about the role of publishing culture and academic oversight in the process of fraud creation, and mentioning that these problems are universal to academia.
@@catyatzee4143 yeah, he doesn't own the subject, but that doesn't mean that you can just summarize his video (and copy all the best jokes) and only credit him as a "source"
That sounds like the chatgpt response of a student that copied their adsense homework. "justifies" "references" "highlighting" hmmm nah, this is an algo play@@stephenbrizie5082
I am an old applied mathematician. One of my supervisors (Joe Moyal ) was invited by Dirac to meet him in Cambridge during World War 2 to discuss Joe's paper on the statistical foundations of quantum mechanics. Joe had published with heavy hitters like Bartlett on the stastistcal side. QM is all statistics at the experimental level. When I see frogshit like this I just want to die. My own daughter is an oncologist who I encouraged to understand biostatistics ( because there are so many fraudsters and lightweights in the space) and she got a Masters of Biostats with HD and then a PhD research degree on antibody drug conjugates. It cost me $50,000 for her biostats fees but it was money well spent because she can see all the slime ball "analysis" that goes on.
The two women who sounded the alarm on Hendrik were completely ignored by Bell and the rest of the scientific community for a long time, just cuz they were women. The first woman, Lydia Song, who always knew, was completely disregarded outright because Nature held her own paper hostage. Sadly, although it's slowly getting better, we have a long way to go still.
Well, at least they double checked this one before they gave him the prize Hold up, when you say there are more transistor than wheels does that include gear wheels or just wheels used on vehicles for ground travel?
This is a great channel. Fraud in academia is a window into so many aspects on what’s wrong with our society. Academia is captured by private interests.
Tran-Sister was the first and only single released by the new wave band Neo, fronted by ex-Milk 'N' Cookies guitarist Ian North (vocals). (sorry, could not resist-or may I could?... ;) )
You probably mean "TransistOr" ? BTW, at about 1 min 26 s, a copper grid is shown. The one I know are used to hold samples in TEM (Transmission Electron Microscopy). At 1 min 22 s, it's glass or quartz (Silicon oxide).
Thought I subscribed ages ago... then you did the 'hot' meme, I obviously reached for the like button and spotted I hadn't subscribed after all! Well earned.
*Transistor...sorry
I was sure it was an intentional pun, especially with the two transisters being shown at the same time 🤣
Moore was an intel founder, had nothing to do with ibm.
Take it down and do it over.
UA-cam is crappy enough already without your help.
How did that get through? InductOR resistOR capacitOR transistOR memristOR connectOR thyristOR is it just me or is there a pattern here?
A transister is someone who used to be your brother...
Also, Gordon Moore was cofounder of Intel, not IBM.
Yeah, I noticed that as well.
Thanks. I was about to add that comment as well. And for others interested in the history element here, check out the book "The Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America" by Margaret O'Mara. Another great book in. this venue is "Chip War: The Fight for the World's Most Critical Technology" by Chris Miller.
I don't comment often but this correction was going to be one :)
Thanks. My bad.
And even IBM was founded 44 years before he was born
I'm a material scientist, and semiconductors are very important to my line of work. The Schön Scandal is arguably the most significant scandal that I know of in my field. My father was at IBM when he saw this play out in real time. Its a story I never get tired of hearing from him.
Man I wanna hear your father tell the story could you interview him for it or could we communicate some way that I could hear it. I'm not a creator or anything just a curious mind.
@@XsionduCommenting to get notifications.
Bragger 🙄🙄🙄
@@Xsiondu I'm embarrassed to say that I only just saw this. Sure, I think that could be an interesting conversation to share!
Hey! Appreciate being linked and shouted-out here, but it does feel a bit weird to reword my video's title like this. I don't have a monopoly on this subject by any means, but you're not the only other channel who has done that lol
For those who want the most direct source of info on this scandal I would recommend reading Eugenie Reich's book Plastic Fantastic!
I approve this message
Exactly what I thought, Pete should know better. Thanks for covering this case Bobby.
Not sure what was special about your title? The comments are full of support for you but you need to make a big deal about a similar title AND you definitely were credited?? We'll be on this plagiarism boat for years now...
@@azuredystopia3751 just shut up
He ripped everything
I guess I'm watching Bobby Broccoli's series on this again. It's like a monthly occurrence at this point.
Let's pretend we didn't watch.
Bobby Brocoli MENTIONED RAHH WtD IS A BAD VIDEO(HE ONLY HAS GOOD ONES)
By 0:30 there’s already several mistakes.
The comments mention some of them, but one I don’t see mentioned, Hendrik didn’t work in “transistors”, he just happened to claim to make one, his area of study was organics.
1) Jan is totally guilty
2) Batlogg is not clean. He's got a postdoc with Nobel level results, and he doesn't go in the lab? That means he's a former scientist, and now just a tenured educrat in our administration heavy university system. (my advisor was in the late late night all the time, pre tenure, ...but mostly to keep me from breaking stuff)
3) Peer Review: the referee comments and revisions need to be made public for forensic analysis
4) My aforementioned advisor, when queried about a publishing in Nature/Science, just snickered, "no I want to publish in a science journal, not a porno mag".
That might be one step too harsh, I've just thought of them as coffee-table magazines for dentists' and doctors' waiting-rooms. But the general evaluation of those mags are correct. One doesn't go there to get useful information.
@ 4: 😂😂😂
Quite a lot of good stuff gets published in Nature.
@@richardokeefe7410 well, regarding the quantum entanglement measurements, which have since won a Nobel, he said: quantum mechanics works, we’ve known that for 100 years. He was into far more difficult things.
@@KitagumaIgen I mean that's cute & all but all my life in doctor + dentist offices I've usually seen broadsides like People or sometimes The New Yorker magazine but you are obviously smarter than I am therefore must be correct despite the factual wrongness of your joke.
The lack of reflection + insight in some commenters here is really staggering. Intellectual vanity & the over-valuing of intelligence as a quality untethered from other qualities & contempt for "the dumber ones" are among the attitudes that perpetuate the culture of fraud in academia.
Bobby Broccoli deserves way more credit than a shout-out at the end of your video and link at the bottom of the video description if his videos were your only source on this topic. You mention him, but you don't cite any sources. You were in academia, right? You should know that's not cool.
in* academia
@@alicedoors4826 thanks
Cry about it
This guy just ripped him off. And he does videos about academic fraud, wtf
If you check the description of the video, he cited Bobby Broccoli's video and he gave him more than just a shout out. He declared Bobby Broccoli's video as a major source. As an academic, Pete Judo provided a bit of his own insight from his own perspective, but didn't dive into it too much because that's Bobby Broccoli's forte. I fail to see what more Pete Judo could do here.
Ironic. He could detect all plagiarism except his own.
Where better to look for insight than a master in the field?
12:44 This point and the way you present it is EXTREMELY similar to an interview with one of the people who was involved in investigating this fraud. Plagiarism is not a road you want to go down; be careful.
Yeah, I get the sense he tried to reword bobbybroccoli but accidentally reworded a quote broccoli used.
BobbyBroccoli made an amazing video on this topic.
I agree. I stumbled across BB's Ninovium video and was fascinated by both his storytelling knack and original narrative visualisation method.
Wasn't it a series? I love Broccoli's stuff.
this is basically the sparknotes version of that video
He did!!!
i was about to comment on this hehe, his documentary is amazing!
I think the author is always the primary culprit but I think peer review is the main issue. It’s a label that says “don’t question this. It was already questioned and verified!” It’s a false sense of security. Letting people say whatever they want without a filter makes everyone more skeptical, which is good imo.
Generally, peer reviewed doesn't mean "don't question this." (except maybe in pure mathematics). If you or others think so, you have misunderstood. Published articles are being questioned, discussed and examined all the time.
Peer review means, according to the assessment of the reviewers, that appropriate scientific methods have been applied to reach the conclusions, the quality of the research is up to the standard required by the journal, and the paper is reasonably well written. This doesn't mean mistake has not been made, mistake has been discovered, no fraud was committed, our current methods and knowledge are perfect, etc.
We all know reviewers have limited knowledge, skills and time to check everything.
@JS-oh2dp My point is it's exactly not used that way. I worked in engineering, physical science, and statistics research for more than 20 years. Nobody I know regard peer reviewed papers as "don't question them." Not in practice and not formally.
@@sunway1374 my point wasn’t that it is SUPPOSED to be used that way, it’s that it IS used that way but a lot of people. Maybe not by the people who are intimately familiar with it but that isn’t where the misconceptions are coming from. The misconceptions come from the broader public, which is important when science is involved in making policy.
There have been so many arguments I’ve seen that have boiled down to “my point is supported by X article and it is PEER REVIEWED which means objectively correct”
@ryanthornton3556 Like i said if you or anyone else regard peer review papers as irrefutable you have misunderstood the use of peer review. The label is put there incorrectly. Your original comment is criticising peer review. The journals, the authors, the reviewers and the scientific community do not put that label there. That was my point.
@@sunway1374 it’s fair to say it isn’t peer reviewers fault for its reputation but that it is the fault of people who misunderstand it. I don’t misunderstand it, I never said it was irrefutable. I said that’s the perception. Though, I would argue that the system/people involved aren’t fully without blame. There is an underlying elitism about peer review that I think contributes to this misconception. It’s like a lie they don’t promote but don’t seem to do a lot in the way to disclaim.
Though, I would also argue there is a problem with the system besides its reputation. Peer review is supposed to at least say “yes, this is reasonable” but there are countless cases of data being so ludicrous it’s like the reviewer didn’t even read it or check the data.
So, yes, it’s a misconception that isn’t pushed by the peer reviewers and is a clear misunderstanding but 1. It isn’t disclaimed enough (imo, that is subjective) and 2. It does have issues worthy of criticism but maybe that’s moving the goal post.
Pete intentionally spelled it "transister" to distract Americans from the word "aluminium"
Yes but both aluminum and aluminium are accepted spellings of the element.
neighbor and neighbor? I am Canadian residing in USA. Check and cheque? Once questioned by USA professor on “piqued” as a word (just from curiosity 😏).
I thought he was comparing his Trans-Sister to a transistor lol.
BobbyBroccoli made a series about this guy and I recommend it highly. It has more nuance and information.
is it even better because it was the original work of which this is a shameless copy?
@@KenLongTortoiseI wouldn’t have known better considering the topic of his videos it’s quite the irony lol
According to Google : “ Transister was a British-American alternative rock band formed in late 1995 in Los Angeles.” . Lol. I know it’s just a typo, but I had to look it up for fun. Always love your videos, this a great one, it’s actually related to my field of research.
Never heard of them , were they any good ?, it seems the alternative bandwagon that take 90s rock by storm passed them by because again never heard of them and as an adolescent was into this music like balls deep
yeah, but were they better than The Tubes? W.P.O.D 4eva!!!
I am a physicist with a Ph.D. in materials... and I take my dedication as a reviewer very seriously, so I found several mistakes in a few articles; in one of them, I wrote, "How you are claiming this result, that is contrary of all the data that we publish in the last 30 years" ... He answers me with a paper of my director, paper that I study by years. I found that he didn't understand what my professor wrote.
Also, I have a review paper. It was horrible work because of all the papers that I read; only 30% had data that I could use, and several of them, around 20%, had fake data.. How could they publish that work?
In experimental physics... In materials like this case, it is normal to find fake data. The reviewers usually don't want to revise all the data and the equations... I had problems with lower claims and usually answered, "I include the raw data of those experiments that you could follow to reach that conclusion; if you find a mistake, we can study together... and if is necessary, I could provide you with the samples to measure by your self" the answer is always the same "I accept your claims."
It is time-consuming, but I repeat several samples and measure again to find out if I made a mistake with the previous one.
❤
Good on you. If only your attitude was more of the norm.
20% of the papers have fake data (and that is only out of the ones that actually included data)? That is serious.
It seems like we need another system of reviewing studies for publishing. It seems like we currently rely on a system that assumes that PhDs are some kind of special humans who never lie, instead of the obvious fact that they are normal human beings who have the same preponderance to lie to advance their station in life as any other human being.
A degree has NO bearing on your morality and doesn't magically transform you into someone who'd never lie, all groups of people will have a large percent who is willing to lie if it benefits them, especially when they feel they won't get caught
We have lots of studies showing the astonishingly high percentage of people willing to cheat when they believe there's no chance to get caught. We need to view this as a part of human nature and change the review process to one standard process followed 100% of the time that takes just being a human (and all of the associated faults that come with that) into account and not just "assume" scientists are special unique humans.
All study data should be reviewed for statistical anomalies or evidence of fabrication, and be tested for replicability. Submitters can pay for this or their university can pay, and there can be a fund set up for independent scientists which can be contributed to by all major institutions and donors who value science
@@pandamandimaxThis is a great idea. We need to have systems in place that take real human nature into account, not idealistic view of it.
oh man, that's hell of a sloppy attempt at capitalizing on BobbyBroccoli's work, and not even spelling his name correctly! tell as more about dodgy practices and plagiarism.
Yeah, the irony of this video calling out academic fraud is just exquisite.
Loved Bobby's series, but your short video is such an awesome resource to share with people who don't have time to watch hours of documentary!
Yeah but it seems like he just took Bobby's vid and copied it. He told the story in the same order eith the same details and used analogies that were direct copies of Bobby
Ex: doing dishes less frequently than hendrix published papers.
Seems like he just watched and then condensed without actually adding anything to the story... which is sad cause I like this channel.
Yes i also felt the same, maybe Bobby's series is so detailed so every body endup referring to him, but he did give him the credit so it seems fine@@carpetman9191
And misses the most important context of that era which Bobby goes into and explains why so many people might be willing to believe him for so long. Average day, average scientists in an average lab and I don't Schön would have gotten as far as he did. It's part of why Bobby's documentary is so long but skipping the societal context means you aren't going to understand the complexity of people's motivations.
Brocumentary
After watching your videos regarding Francesca Gino, I thought,” but could this also happen with more verifiable science ?” It seems it most certainly can ! Thanks for covering these topics .
You should check out Bobby Broccoli's channel if you enjoy this topic. He has a deep dive on Schön that is fantastic and has covered other science scandals. Much longer but great at digging into different ways scientists try to get away with fraud.
@@cupguin indeed ! I actually checked and subscribed after Mr. Judo made mention of him. Thank you 😊
Well yes and no. It did happen, but the scam was uncovered after a relatively short time. Compare that to Gino, for whom it took 10 years to be discovered, and only because of rather obvious errors she committed. If Gino had payed a bit more attention when faking her data, she would not have been found out.
@@terriplays1726 I agree. The errors were almost too obvious, in my opinion. I do find it encouraging to know there are those who decided to scrutinize the work.
An interesting aspect of this is that Bell Labs was on the verge of bankruptcy when this happened. They were cutting staff left and right, this means that the people they kept were the ones making discoveries. It was like publish or perish turned up to eleven.
Errors: At 1:43 Gordon Moore was a cofounder of Intel (with Robert Noyce) not IBM; IBM has been around since before Moore was born.
He also said that transistor density doubles every year, not computing power. It was Dennard that said speed doubles, but that broke down in the early 2000s
Fantastic video! I can't wait for more!
Edit: As a side note, I really like the idea of using a story like this to dig into the actual science of--in this case--transistors and learn a little bit about them. It not only gives us a sense of why this topic is is so important, but also has a bit of an educational side to it as well.
Plagarism is fine if you leave a mention in the description right?
Nop. That's not enought. Plagiarism is plagiarism if you don't quote as " ..."
@@valeriadominguez7370 This may be true for whatever your field is, but standards for citation vary widely between different disciplines. By your definition, most if not all publication in fields as varied as e.g. Medicine, Sociology, Biology, Japanese Studies,... would be guilty of plagiarism.
It’s weird that to me it feels like their was less push back on the whistle blower in this case than in some of the cases you’ve gone over in terms of cognitive science. I can’t help but suspect that much of it has to do with in the transistor case funders are more interested in the tangible product while in the cognitive science cases, funders were more interested in the findings fitting a narrative
Interesting observation.
In physics, there are less confounding factors and experiments should be readily replicable. If it's not, then it's immediately obvious even if it takes some time to dethrone the fraud.
The irony of a youtuber posting on academic fraud himself succumbing himself to plagarism in the face of sweet youtube ad revenue... gold.
this video is giving James Somerton smh
Yeah not cool. Pete has submitted comments for corrections to this video 2 months ago but has ignored this comment from BB for over a month. Happier to leave it up than address it? He accepted BBs work was a major source but... Ripped the title exactly, put the citation at the end rather than the beginning and ignored all the top comments on this video calling foul? Yeah messed up considering a major theme of the channel is ethics in academia.
Came here from your video on the Cornell professor where you chastised his approach to quantity over quality. Hope you address this because it does fail the litmus test for piggybacking another's hard work. No hate to the Pete but, feels sketch to me.
I’m never going to look at Nature and Science Journals in the same way again. It makes me wonder what other “garbage” or questionable studies, treatises, and data they have lent their erstwhile reputation to.
Thank you for citing and sharing about BobbyBroccoli’s channel as well!
There is a way to cheat and not get caught. It just means your research has to be next to useless... The more significant it is, the more scrutiny there will be as significant findings usually point towards "there is lots of money to be made". It is weird how this guy too is very intelligent and yet doesn't understand that very simple equation: the more attention you get the more likely it is that you will get caught.
Pete would definitely benefit from reviews of his videos by an editor. Just to mention the most obvious: 1. spelling of transistors (multiple). 2. spelling of Christian Kloc (at 3:48). 3. attribution of career of Gordon Moore (1:43). and 4. spelling of responsible (14:58)
I'm sure he's just checking that everyone's paying attention :/
Almost like a behavioural study, you think?
British spelling looks wrong to an American.
You made me check if "transister" is a valid spelling. :D
The book “Plastic fantastic” contains lengthy discussions on problems raised in this video.
"Transistor = Switch" Clearly digital-centric. Transistors can do more than just turn ON or OFF. There are analog circuits, where the transistor is varied between on and off. No, not to be confused quantum phenomena of being both, but actually a very real ability to vary the conductivity. In the old days of electronics, it was almost all analog. You know, your grandparent's radios and TVs. All analog circuits, for decades.
When I heard this guy's name, Bobbybroccoli came to mind, as he's done a real in depth coverage of this fraud. He also made another science fraud video, on stem cell research, from Korea (hwang woo-suk).
BobbyBroccoli did a great series about him on his channel. A bit long, but fantastic for anyone who’s interested.
I wrote this before I watched you video to the end 😂
Great job from both of you.
The Journals are a major factor, as they don’t hold enough responsibility on the PEER REVIEWERS. It used to be that Peers held each other accountable. Now, it is a simple smokescreen which allows each other to Publish poor quality work. In Medicine, publications are produced daily, peer reviewed by people who have no basic understanding of the process and/or methodology. PRP publications, for example.
13:36 Agreed. Compared to 17 papers on the mating habits of the blue-footed booby, 1 paper on a cure for cancer could be more damaging.
2:20
Germanium used to be used too. It just sucks at being a transistor. Granted, if you are into music, some people swear by germanium transistors being better in certain music hardware than silicon
Glad someone brought it up, Gordon Moore was an Intel founder, IBM was founded by Hollerinth, Flint, and Watson in 1911, a wee bit before transistors.
Moore was a co-founder of Intel. He was never associated with IBM, as he was considered too young during his lifetime, and this remained unchanged even after his death.
@5:45 . . . yeah, but at least my dishes have been peer reviewed! I managed to finally complete my thesis on the advantages of leaving the pots to soak using real world data, despite my flatmates efforts to sabotage my experiments and get me evicted. Now I'm employed at a prestigious hotel where I have been putting my findings to work, so my research has borne fruit, and is making a real difference in the world!
The actual story of his fraud starts around 5:00
Man I loved that. The dog kept bothering me to come in and out....I thought one more time and he's going to get it.
The only people who blindly trust the peer-review system are those who don't really understand it.
Even independent research that corroborates (or negates) a previous study should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.
In my opinion at least Batlogg has to bear significant responsibility. It happened on his watch - "the buck stops there." Part of the RESPONSIBILITY of supervisors is to pay enough attention to be confident their subordinates are doing their jobs right, and that applies not only in science but in every human endeavor.
The guy who just made the crystals? I can let him off - he was really just providing a service to the other people, and he provided it. He's not the one whose position calls for him to maintain oversight.
These things absolutely should "cut upward," but I don't think they necessarily should cut sideways unless particular circumstances of the situation warrant it.
Regarding the journals? Well, ultimately they are paying the price of having been party to this. But the onus of making that happen is on US. When do we decide that maybe Nature ISN'T quite so prestigious as we've regarded it in the past? That's a decision for us to make - all of us. Nature rises and falls on our assessment of it. It's like when government officials do bad things and then get reelected - that becomes the responsibility of the VOTERS. If we accept it and put up with it, then we are the ones who have failed.
At 11:28, a picture of Professor Sohn appears over the damning details of Schon's work. That juxtaposition, along with the phonetic similarities between their names, introduced alarming confusion for me.
Transistors are not only used as switches (in the saturation and cutoff region of the transistor), but as amplifiers when the transistor is biased in its linear region. Transistors weren't even used as switches at first.
I can't get over the fact that he is one of the smartest beings on the planet, a scientist, but he made a stupid mistake by copying and pasting the exact graph in his paper. Isn't it straightforward to comprehend that this could lead people to realize he committed data fraud? (assuming he planned his way to publishing the fraudulent paper)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised when the hard sciences say that social science is full of fraud and they're too pure to ever have something like that happen, but God it's frustrating to hear as someone in social science who works really hard to do quality data analysis and be respectful of the people in working with. And then hearing about all this nonsense.
Back in the late 1980s, my Biophysics professor warned us that a lot of published research was sh*t, even in "reputable" journals. The other lower tier publications exist just to pad resumes.
Academic fraud is VERY, VERY common, especially in the fields of psychology, behavior, and many other healthcare fields.
There is a very rare, but more rigorous, process than peer review: peer auditing. An independent 3rd party must audit the actual experimental setup, data collection, and data processing for acceptance. It's expensive and inconvenient, so it's likely reserved for cases where the scientists don't trust their own results, like the "faster-than-light" neutrinos finding that turned out to be due to a damaged fibre optic line.
In experimental sciences and engineering, reviewing whether the data makes sense or not is tricky. Often, the reviewers simply do not have the resources to verify them, and they are also simply very expensive. They simply rely on the honesty of the authors. Sad reality.
Bobby Broccoli made an incredible documentary on this... But this was still a nice refresher.
IBM was founded by Charles Flint as the fusion of four existing companies. The result was renamed to IBM by T. J. Watson. I had the privilege of working under Dr Cuthbert Hurd. As he told it, he tried to persuade T. J. Watson that computers were a good idea; T. J. Watson said to him "If you sell them, we'll build them", Dr Hurd found some customers, and the rest is history. History that doesn't involve Gordon Moore. When Gordon Moore was born, IBM had been called IBM for five years already.
Thanks!
Pete.. small fact-check thing: Moore was the co-founder of Intel, where he sat on the board for a very long time. His paper, called "Cramming more components into integrated circuits" is very short, and is about the idea that integrated circuits (at the time being a chip with some operational function) would become smaller, and that this would allow.. more components to be put in these varied specialisations of integrated circuits, which then would increase the processing power. His company would go on to ditch that idea completely, and instead move on to the model that made Intel the company it is, where complex circuits are replaced with higher clocked and fewer generic circuits.
In other words, "Moore's law" applies to a concept that was ditched by Intel, and arguably caused the split in Fairchild that led to founding AMD. Meanwhile, Ibm and ARM have been working in areas where Moore's suggestion is more relevant. But the whole paradigm that modern computers are based on is not even remotely connected to Moore's thesis: the idea that computing power doubles every now and then, and storage space grows exponentially and so on - complete bonk. Does not happen, it's a marketing blurb.
Other than that, Claudine Gay argued that opposition to sionism, to christianity, to whatever, and even very upsetting opposition to something - may very well not be a problem, nor that it should be banned from debate. In certain contexts, it is possible to argue even very distasteful things (although the culprits here were not actually calling for eradicating jews). At a university, that is not a controversial statement, to simply say that the ceiling for censorship is extremely high. And that without considering the context the statements were given, you cannot possibly just blanket condemn something as attacks on jews, or making the campus unsafe (which is what was alleged). But it is a controversial statement in the US congress and senate, never mind in the hearing that you clipped from, where criticising Israel shall not be excused "in any context". So while I'm sure the accusations "sound" worse than the plagiarism (that was basically bullshit, like you point out), they are flatly the result of the efforts of an Israel lobby that then brags about having gotten rid of Gay - in public. "This is what happens when you are silent and weak against anti-semitism", said the Israel on Campus Coalition, openly arguing for banning any opposition to not just Israel, but any pro-Israeli demonstrations.
And an academic that just says "well, we should probably not ban speech, whether it's this or that" is considered a threat to that.
wow, this is sooo huge, this is like a movie. a bit scary though... .i wish the journals would have an academic datawarehouse to make it easier to verify the data
The AI upscaling on pics of Henrik looks way worse than the originals. The pics of him here look.... waxy?
Now you're just going for BobbyBroccoli's viewers
I didn’t realize that Bell Labs is still running under the name of Nokia Bell labs.
I like that this example was not in social science. It was obvious that the other examples you show on social sciences had nothing to do with being "social" but that it was rather just a matter of "scientists" faking data while no one verify their works.
Henrik’s Sci-Fi papers published in Nature magazine 😂
Note to self: CHANGE THE RANDOM NUMBER SEED!
The only reason I cared to watch your channel is because of the fraud drama. So I was more than happy that you decided to focus on the flaws in academia. I think you are benefiting science as a whole thus have a much bigger positive effect.
Moore was one of the founders of Intel, he had nothing to do with IBM.
I didn't conciously realize you had a british accent until I saw how you spelled "transister" and thought it was the british spelling.
A couple of corrections. The word Transistor comes from the words transfer and resistor, ,hence the OR not IR as the last letters. Also the first transistors were made from Germanium, not Silicon.
1:39 Gordon Moore was a founder of Intel, definitely not IBM.
this is why i believe NOTHING should be published (or taken seriously) without at least TWO other researchers / teams sucessfully replicating it
If you're going to be ripping off another creator's video, at least spell their name correctly.
didn't bobby broccoli already make like six hours on this guy?
Yes, but he doesn’t own the subject lol. Plus I can see that some people don’t like long form and want a shorter video, but I’m just enjoying both these guys content right now :)
Yes, and Peter Judo explicitly references Bobby Broccoli's series and links part 1 of Broccoli's series in the description. He also justifies the current video by highlighting the fact that much of the comments on his previous videos were claiming that fraud only happens in social sciences, then extrapolating to broader questions about the role of publishing culture and academic oversight in the process of fraud creation, and mentioning that these problems are universal to academia.
Round 2!! Lets go!!
@@catyatzee4143 yeah, he doesn't own the subject, but that doesn't mean that you can just summarize his video (and copy all the best jokes) and only credit him as a "source"
That sounds like the chatgpt response of a student that copied their adsense homework. "justifies" "references" "highlighting" hmmm nah, this is an algo play@@stephenbrizie5082
I am an old applied mathematician. One of my supervisors (Joe Moyal ) was invited by Dirac to meet him in Cambridge during World War 2 to discuss Joe's paper on the statistical foundations of quantum mechanics. Joe had published with heavy hitters like Bartlett on the stastistcal side. QM is all statistics at the experimental level. When I see frogshit like this I just want to die. My own daughter is an oncologist who I encouraged to understand biostatistics ( because there are so many fraudsters and lightweights in the space) and she got a Masters of Biostats with HD and then a PhD research degree on antibody drug conjugates. It cost me $50,000 for her biostats fees but it was money well spent because she can see all the slime ball "analysis" that goes on.
All of them should be held to a account because they all didn’t do their jobs
I really enjoy your notation!! Great Video!!
He was never close to winning a Nobel prize, since no one has reproduced his results. Please don’t fight bad science with clickbaits
Really enjoying you and Bobby right now!!!
1:42 co-founder of Intel. Suggest you to add a note to the video description, as this is an error.
basically, the academic form of click bait
Love this channel!!!
It’s deserves more views!
The two women who sounded the alarm on Hendrik were completely ignored by Bell and the rest of the scientific community for a long time, just cuz they were women. The first woman, Lydia Song, who always knew, was completely disregarded outright because Nature held her own paper hostage.
Sadly, although it's slowly getting better, we have a long way to go still.
Good to hear you give a shout-out for Boby Brocolli.
The thumbnail guy looks like Barry from the Goldbergs
Well, at least they double checked this one before they gave him the prize
Hold up, when you say there are more transistor than wheels does that include gear wheels or just wheels used on vehicles for ground travel?
"Crystal wizard" 😂💀
Bobbybroccoli is awesome and your work is great too as a shortened version
Thank you. You are doing a great service.
This is a great channel. Fraud in academia is a window into so many aspects on what’s wrong with our society. Academia is captured by private interests.
Tran-Sister was the first and only single released by the new wave band Neo, fronted by ex-Milk 'N' Cookies guitarist Ian North (vocals).
(sorry, could not resist-or may I could?... ;) )
You probably mean "TransistOr" ? BTW, at about 1 min 26 s, a copper grid is shown. The one I know are used to hold samples in TEM (Transmission Electron Microscopy). At 1 min 22 s, it's glass or quartz (Silicon oxide).
Have you done a video on Andes Keysa perfect example of P manipulation also the
Minnesota Farmington
Funnily enough, the name "Schön" translates to "Beautiful" in German
Make more of these!!!! So many retractions i wonder what the first guy on the retraction watch did
People seem more concerned about fame than consistent work. Results ensue. I am not surprised.
Let's bring back "TUBES" !!....Hee, Hee, Hee !
Bro kinda just made a worse Bobby broccoli video
I thought Gordon co-founder of Intel, not IBM.
@14:55 Prestigious journals? If COVID proved anything, it's that these journals are on the level of National Enquirer.
Broccoli
Soccoli
What's he doing today
Thought I subscribed ages ago... then you did the 'hot' meme, I obviously reached for the like button and spotted I hadn't subscribed after all! Well earned.
Gordon Moore was the co-founder of Intel not IBM. Before Intel he worked at Fairchild.