They can provide you with multiple editorials written in the same format as and sandwiched between primary research articles in order to support their claim!!!
@@amandaforrester7636 Dear Amanda, recently it has come to our attention that you were posting youtube comments on a saturday. Naturally this begs the question - WHY THE F. ARE YOU NOT A WORK?
I’m too much of an academic. My thoughts: 1) “That’s not quite accurate, you can put your reviewer status on your CV!” 2) “No, Science won’t know, they’re a competing journal!” 😆
The scientific community should totally band together and organize a non-profit, high-impact journal that invests all its earnings back into science but I guess that’s too utopian to be ever put into reality
I've wondered for years why this isn't a thing. It would be pretty trivial to make it at least remunerative enough to fund web hosting and marketing costs, through either a super affordable subscription program or donations or both, without having to introduce ads or other morally gray strategies. And there could still be reasonable (but below market average) costs for various kinds of licensing, which could in turn fund research, and if it operated as a nonprofit it could also be a vehicle for grants. If I didn't already have such a long list of ideas I have to prioritize more highly, I'd try to make this a thing. I really hope someone does
I think a few have tried. One problem is how to start: to be high-impact, you need to accept only the best of the best. So you need the best of the best to want to publish in your journal. But they want to be published in a high-impact journal, which you are not yet. So you start to accept lower impact paper to get at least known and publish a bit. But then your impact factor reflect that. And so you failed to make a high impact journal. For this to work, you need many high profile researchers/labs to get behind you and publish only/mostly in your journal. And this is not easy.
It’s just a matter of Nash equilibrium where journals utilize artificial competition for journal space to pit scientists against each other to distract them from any significant movements to unite against the greedy journals instead. If a big enough number of high-impact scientists/labs get behind the idea, they could start depending on each other to keep the impact of the journal high and competitive, so that more scientists can get behind this and further reduce overall risk. However the first step to realize this is always the hardest and most risky
Worst part is, that there will always be another reviewer who is willing to do this. This is one of the reasons you have ZERO leverage as a PhD student. If you don't wanna work 80h weeks w/o a weekend in monts, step aside - there are plenty of others ready to suffer.
@@Ciasteczkowy The point is that this harmful practice is only alive because there are so many people willing to donate their labor instead of selling it at an appropriate market price.
@@wraitholme In this age of information we are constantly bombarded with things trying to grab our attention, trying to make us click, trying to make us care. After years of headlines, mass shootings, hyperbolic entertainment, morbid curiosity, and blood-sport politics permeating the fabrics of society can you really blame people for being desensitized and not care? There are at least 30 other issues I can think of not least of which is the video I just watched of bodies being thrown into a mass grave for burial in Ukraine to care about how some schmucks don’t know how to say no and work themselves to death. Diagnose me with ASPD, “doctor.” 🙄
I really wish more researchers would give big publishing companies the middle finger. It's completely unacceptable in the digital age how scientific knowledge is meted out by miserly gatekeepers.
This is conversation that goes in my head, every time I got an mail to review something for some journal :D. Especially for ones with high IF. I remember when I was still doing my PhD, the journal rejected my paper with words 'no evidence', it didn't even went to reviewers. BUT, at the same time, the same journal have called me to review something 'as an expert in the field'. My paper was in computer science area, and there were a hard math proofs for everything I stated, but hey, no evidence :D, BUT I'm expert in the field at the same time :D. Funny.
I saw the title and thought Psychology or one of the other characters would be eating lunch in the park and reviewing the trees and flowers and what not, maybe after a scathing review of wildflower induced allergies we hear about how the duck bros are cool lol
Oh my god this hits so hard across all academia and I love it! (Coming from being a chronically ill social science major with friends that are pre-health majors)
Me, too. I have several chronic illnesses and daily chronic pain so my almost daily review of Nature is "1 star, would not recommend. Now will someone please help upload my consciousness to a robot instead?" Edit: There's a much more concise version of that review, but this is a family channel so I'll censor it :)
That's creepy; I had that exact conversation with a publisher for the first time 20 years ago, after I'd done the first couple of papers as an early career researcher who didn't know any better... (it was via email and I didn't get to do an evil laugh, but the gist was the same). When journals stop shameless profiteering and make their articles available for a less extortionate price, I will consider being a referee. Until then, I just send 'em my pay scale.
@@TomJones-wi4nh I do it because it's been the standard format for a long time. And as a student, I feel obligated to contribute to my field. Also, I've never said no. But I'm sure you can.
Sometimes, if you are lucky, the journal requesting you to review articles, will give a voucher. A voucher worth exactly one-hundred dollars off the open source fee of your own next article submission, that may or may not get accepted in said journal. 👍🏻
My husband has done grant proposal reviews for NASA projects. It actually makes more sense in that case because it’s reviewing grant proposals. Reviewing for Nature for free so it can make money is just wrong.
Slave labor is great for profit margins. Nature and other scientific journals, as well as organizations with unpaid internships, recognize this. When exploiting paid employees is not enough, the promise of intangibles such as prestige or "real-world experience" are sure to get the race to the bottom off to a great start while carving out huge bonuses for "innovative" organization executives. Bonuses may take the form of cash, stock options, pyramids, many more. The rewards for exploiting hard working people is endless.
It is true. I published 4 papers during my phd and in all of them, the only work done by the journal itself was worsening my paper. I presented them a perfectly fine paper, with their own latex package, but they had to move all the figures around, remove things like italic and bold (not that they cannot be used, but they fucking forgot in the copy and paste process), and delaying the process at least for a month. And what did I gain? I gain my research institute to have to pay 5000 euros to make it open access (which is required for EU funded projects now). The peer review was done by unpaid scientists. I myself have reviewed twice. I sent plenty of ideas and comments, and many of them made into the final papers. I did not get an acknowledgement or a payment for any of that. I cannot even tell anyone who knows my identity that I have done it, because it is "considered unprofessional" to mention the papers in which you have been a reviewer.
@JANET NYIRENDA in other words you're taking advantage of the very few people who actually feel guilty as opposed to paying people for their body parts that they are donating to save lives. I would donate if I could make $600 per donation. I don't do it for free because I am terrified of going outside of my home. But I'd leave for 600$. Terrifying as it is.
When Hollywood discovers you, you'll be the next Eddie Murphy. I literally forget you are the only person playing these different characters sometimes. They all feel unique.
I heard this somewhere and also have tried it once. You can just ask directly from the author their research paper for free or at a very respectable price tag. A lot of authors don't like it that they get so little for all their work and the publishing companies gets too much because they printed it. And for me, printing is relatively easier, and cheaper than researching "why this works like this"
"Maybe we should make it easier for them. Like, send the consensus we expect them to find along with the article they will review. It will save them tenebrous amounts of time." "Oh! And we'll get to confirm the consensus, thus reinforcing our standing as a prestigious scientific journal! We're always right!" "Even on CoViD?" "Even on CoViD!"
I've reviewed for several journals. No one gets paid for it. You can put that you reviewed for the journal on your CV. That's it. And yet I always do it when journal is high impact. God, I'm a sucker.
I forgot about the journal Nature and assumed the concept was 'god decided nature itself needs to be peer-reviewed going forward'. Slight disappointment.
Seems kind of weird that reviewers aren’t listed and credited. We give this research so much weight, because it’s “peer reviewed.” If they’re not even listing the reviewers, how do people really know?
He’s a reviewer for Nature For a open access pdf He does it for free He takes his job very seriously He does it because it is the only amount of power and control he will ever have during his pathetic career
Is there a video showing why there are still unpaid reviewers? If there weren't the system would not persist. And yet, despite all the arguments against it, it still does.
Some people say you should just make journals free because scientific knowledge should be open. I can see that angle especially if it's just a website and it's easy to publish with low overhead costs. If you're printing, distributing, etc. those staff still need to be paid somehow. I say just pay the reviewers like any contractor. In fact, I say go a step further and pay your scientists/authors royalties. Book authors make money on their hard earned publication. Scientific research is no doubt similar (in my opinion arguably more time, money, and labor intensive). Sure, bias is an issue, but there are ways to control for that.
I used to work in research. Many get paid via stipends which work out to be less than what you'd get paid at McDonald's while still forcing you to be on a continual treadmill of proving yourself, while people above you abuse you and tell you that you should be happy to do it "for the science." It's not unlike art, where you're supposed to be happy to be poor and starving if you get to participate in your passion. As a result, I went into medicine. Unfortunately, this was a bit of a naive choice. I sort of think a lot of the problem stems from both professions being old with no incentive to change. For example, I have friends in computer science, and while that's still a science, it's a new science and they seemed toil in futility much less.
Who's next..... This is really the challenge that social has magnified in that we create tribes and communities based on shared beliefs. When the curtain is pulled back and you really know how the sausage is made, your belief system is fractured. You still have appreciation for the end product - SCIENCE - but you know how they got to the end result. You become a non-believer in a pool of believers. You want people to listen to you and know what you know, but then you become the heretic. The thing you appreciated and valued has now become the thing you disdain and loathe. Because the thing you really appreciated - the science AND the community - has now turned its back on you.... who's next...
Yeahhhh…. Can someone please explain this? I really don’t understand how they keep getting away with this. Maybe if you are a top scientist or doctor, you’ve got other fundings ? Or paid holidays ? In other words, it only works for the top ones?
Sometimes I forget that all the characters are done by just one person.
IT'S ALL DONE BY JONATHAN....*nods*
Sometimes I'm not watching and I swear it's suddenly Patrick Warburton
Me too
True that
What are you talking about? There's internal, cardiology, Mr. Kidneys, Johnathan... doctors just uhhhh all look the same after awhile
It is an irrefutable fact that scientists love working for zero pay and zero recognition. This unbiased scientific fact is brought to you by Nature. ✅
You forgot to add "now pay us 60 dollars a month"
The only people who enjoy working underpaid for zero recognition more is everyone in the healthcare system who isnt a doctor.
They can provide you with multiple editorials written in the same format as and sandwiched between primary research articles in order to support their claim!!!
Fact check ✔️ provided by Nature
@@amandaforrester7636 Dear Amanda,
recently it has come to our attention that you were posting youtube comments on a saturday.
Naturally this begs the question - WHY THE F. ARE YOU NOT A WORK?
I’m too much of an academic. My thoughts:
1) “That’s not quite accurate, you can put your reviewer status on your CV!”
2) “No, Science won’t know, they’re a competing journal!” 😆
Came looking for point 2!
And I was here looking for point 1...
lmbo nah I thought the EXACT same things.
Couldn't you just put it in as "been selected as a reviewer"? It's not like that's untrue, whether you accepted or not.
Lolll
The scientific community should totally band together and organize a non-profit, high-impact journal that invests all its earnings back into science but I guess that’s too utopian to be ever put into reality
I've wondered for years why this isn't a thing. It would be pretty trivial to make it at least remunerative enough to fund web hosting and marketing costs, through either a super affordable subscription program or donations or both, without having to introduce ads or other morally gray strategies. And there could still be reasonable (but below market average) costs for various kinds of licensing, which could in turn fund research, and if it operated as a nonprofit it could also be a vehicle for grants. If I didn't already have such a long list of ideas I have to prioritize more highly, I'd try to make this a thing. I really hope someone does
I mean how about operating purely on donation and volunteer work while offering all the knowledge to the public for free.
I think a few have tried. One problem is how to start: to be high-impact, you need to accept only the best of the best. So you need the best of the best to want to publish in your journal. But they want to be published in a high-impact journal, which you are not yet. So you start to accept lower impact paper to get at least known and publish a bit. But then your impact factor reflect that. And so you failed to make a high impact journal.
For this to work, you need many high profile researchers/labs to get behind you and publish only/mostly in your journal. And this is not easy.
Public, state-funded journals with open access should be a thing.
It’s just a matter of Nash equilibrium where journals utilize artificial competition for journal space to pit scientists against each other to distract them from any significant movements to unite against the greedy journals instead. If a big enough number of high-impact scientists/labs get behind the idea, they could start depending on each other to keep the impact of the journal high and competitive, so that more scientists can get behind this and further reduce overall risk.
However the first step to realize this is always the hardest and most risky
Worst part is, that there will always be another reviewer who is willing to do this. This is one of the reasons you have ZERO leverage as a PhD student. If you don't wanna work 80h weeks w/o a weekend in monts, step aside - there are plenty of others ready to suffer.
so let them suffer. Why does it boder you? Unless you would like to do this for living I don't uderstand your point
@@Ciasteczkowy exactly. Can someone pls explain this?
@@Ciasteczkowy Why does the suffering of others bother me? Really?
Have you considered being tested for ASPD?
@@Ciasteczkowy The point is that this harmful practice is only alive because there are so many people willing to donate their labor instead of selling it at an appropriate market price.
@@wraitholme In this age of information we are constantly bombarded with things trying to grab our attention, trying to make us click, trying to make us care. After years of headlines, mass shootings, hyperbolic entertainment, morbid curiosity, and blood-sport politics permeating the fabrics of society can you really blame people for being desensitized and not care? There are at least 30 other issues I can think of not least of which is the video I just watched of bodies being thrown into a mass grave for burial in Ukraine to care about how some schmucks don’t know how to say no and work themselves to death. Diagnose me with ASPD, “doctor.” 🙄
I really wish more researchers would give big publishing companies the middle finger. It's completely unacceptable in the digital age how scientific knowledge is meted out by miserly gatekeepers.
This is conversation that goes in my head, every time I got an mail to review something for some journal :D. Especially for ones with high IF. I remember when I was still doing my PhD, the journal rejected my paper with words 'no evidence', it didn't even went to reviewers. BUT, at the same time, the same journal have called me to review something 'as an expert in the field'. My paper was in computer science area, and there were a hard math proofs for everything I stated, but hey, no evidence :D, BUT I'm expert in the field at the same time :D. Funny.
The chaotic cackle is what I’m here for. Realizing they have unlimited power but still can’t really help it if you say no
That was a very cathartic experience. Thank you for that!
Im an ID Doc by day, a paper i wrote was returned today and as you predicted reviewer 2 unleashed their wrath. Excellent video hah
Mine too he was not under our scoop ...
The misery that is academia. This is an amazing skit!
I would love to hear that laugh edited into a version of Thriller. That would be amazing.
I saw the title and thought Psychology or one of the other characters would be eating lunch in the park and reviewing the trees and flowers and what not, maybe after a scathing review of wildflower induced allergies we hear about how the duck bros are cool lol
Oh my god this hits so hard across all academia and I love it! (Coming from being a chronically ill social science major with friends that are pre-health majors)
I read the title Nature as in Mother Nature and thought, "ya damn straight!". Then I watched and also thought "ya damn straight!".
Me, too.
I have several chronic illnesses and daily chronic pain so my almost daily review of Nature is "1 star, would not recommend. Now will someone please help upload my consciousness to a robot instead?"
Edit: There's a much more concise version of that review, but this is a family channel so I'll censor it :)
So true. Publishers have become monopolies that are out of control with their fees.
Thank you for mentioning the libraries and the huge subscription costs.
Reminds me so much of when my undergraduate thesis advisor was trying to explain the process of getting my results published
That's creepy; I had that exact conversation with a publisher for the first time 20 years ago, after I'd done the first couple of papers as an early career researcher who didn't know any better... (it was via email and I didn't get to do an evil laugh, but the gist was the same).
When journals stop shameless profiteering and make their articles available for a less extortionate price, I will consider being a referee. Until then, I just send 'em my pay scale.
"Well, when you put it _that_ way..." 🤣
Glad that nowadays there are some free platforms that shares articles on every science domain(illegaly tho). God bless the internet!
Dermatology could've made an appearance to treat that savage burn.
As a PhD student, this hits home. I’m the sucker that willingly spends hours doing this for low tier journals (that I’ve published in) just to do it
ua-cam.com/video/9Deg7VrpHbM/v-deo.html
Genuinely curious - Do you do it for Science!, recognition or because everyone else does it? Is saying No ever an option?
@@TomJones-wi4nh I do it because it's been the standard format for a long time. And as a student, I feel obligated to contribute to my field. Also, I've never said no. But I'm sure you can.
the evil laughter had me rolling 😂😂
The worst part… is these scientific journals who think they can charge you like $4000
Sci-Hub: “Allow us to introduce ourselves”
YES! Stick it to 'em, doc!
This is why supervillains usually have a doctorate degree.
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS!!!! Reviewers.... let's get together and end this unethical practice where journals profit off us...
Bravo 🙌, for highlighting the very convoluted world of Medical research publishing
There should be the "emotional dammage" meme at the end 🤣
😂😂😂 This is exactly what I was explaining to a friend recently.
It’s simple, I see video. I click. Lol thanks for the great content ☺️
Feels like every job I've done in lactation, including the ones I've done with patients. It's hard being in a field no one thinks is a field. *sigh*
Your field is most certainly a field and an important one at that.
@@johnb3976 thanks. It means a lot to hear that.
The ending! Glorious.
it's terrifying when a good character laughs an evil laughter
Yes , Yes , Yes , finally someone addresses the absurdity of these policies👏👏👏
As a member of the R2 Facebook group, I appreciate the R2 moment 😂😂😂
If one does not set one's own value, the world will certainly not raise it. An Artist learns this quickly!
I think it's less important that they start paying reviewers and more important that they stop paying themselves
Interestingly enough, I got paid to review text books for medical assisting, medical coding and pharmacy …
The heart of evidence based medicine depends on research. This is a great video that sheds light on this complex process. Job well done
Sometimes, if you are lucky, the journal requesting you to review articles, will give a voucher. A voucher worth exactly one-hundred dollars off the open source fee of your own next article submission, that may or may not get accepted in said journal. 👍🏻
I love that you talk a lot about that topic. Needs more awareness!
As an unpaid intern, I felt this 😅
Like the PI cares when he offloads it onto the grad students 😂
My husband has done grant proposal reviews for NASA projects. It actually makes more sense in that case because it’s reviewing grant proposals. Reviewing for Nature for free so it can make money is just wrong.
Slave labor is great for profit margins. Nature and other scientific journals, as well as organizations with unpaid internships, recognize this. When exploiting paid employees is not enough, the promise of intangibles such as prestige or "real-world experience" are sure to get the race to the bottom off to a great start while carving out huge bonuses for "innovative" organization executives. Bonuses may take the form of cash, stock options, pyramids, many more. The rewards for exploiting hard working people is endless.
It is true. I published 4 papers during my phd and in all of them, the only work done by the journal itself was worsening my paper. I presented them a perfectly fine paper, with their own latex package, but they had to move all the figures around, remove things like italic and bold (not that they cannot be used, but they fucking forgot in the copy and paste process), and delaying the process at least for a month. And what did I gain? I gain my research institute to have to pay 5000 euros to make it open access (which is required for EU funded projects now).
The peer review was done by unpaid scientists. I myself have reviewed twice. I sent plenty of ideas and comments, and many of them made into the final papers. I did not get an acknowledgement or a payment for any of that. I cannot even tell anyone who knows my identity that I have done it, because it is "considered unprofessional" to mention the papers in which you have been a reviewer.
You’re doing the lord’s work man.
Reviewers aren't real they can't hurt you.
Reviewers:
An honor, and an onus.
The person they call will be the interns and first year residents! Lol
On the same token, people who donate blood and plasma should be paid. $600/pint of o- blood
@JANET NYIRENDA in other words you're taking advantage of the very few people who actually feel guilty as opposed to paying people for their body parts that they are donating to save lives.
I would donate if I could make $600 per donation.
I don't do it for free because I am terrified of going outside of my home.
But I'd leave for 600$. Terrifying as it is.
The laugh 💀
How come Dr.Glaumcomflecken and journal dude use the same phone! I’m starting to think it’s the same guy…
When Hollywood discovers you, you'll be the next Eddie Murphy. I literally forget you are the only person playing these different characters sometimes. They all feel unique.
I heard this somewhere and also have tried it once.
You can just ask directly from the author their research paper for free or at a very respectable price tag.
A lot of authors don't like it that they get so little for all their work and the publishing companies gets too much because they printed it.
And for me, printing is relatively easier, and cheaper than researching "why this works like this"
Where can we get a copy of the evil laugh track? I want to play it when UWorld thinks it has best me.
"Maybe we should make it easier for them. Like, send the consensus we expect them to find along with the article they will review. It will save them tenebrous amounts of time."
"Oh! And we'll get to confirm the consensus, thus reinforcing our standing as a prestigious scientific journal! We're always right!"
"Even on CoViD?"
"Even on CoViD!"
Tristopher😂😂😂jimothy and bimothy
I've reviewed for several journals. No one gets paid for it. You can put that you reviewed for the journal on your CV. That's it. And yet I always do it when journal is high impact. God, I'm a sucker.
Checkmate! Haahha you tell em doc.
Someone better notify the burn ward, cuz he got buuuurnt
I love this so much.
I forgot about the journal Nature and assumed the concept was 'god decided nature itself needs to be peer-reviewed going forward'. Slight disappointment.
I'm confused, he says it's for Science but wasn't it for Nature?
Broooooo.....this is what I go through everytime. Nature are a cartel if u ask me...lol...Good thing we have scihub😂😂😂
publishing the articles also requires crazy money, open access or not.
Lmao so true,welcome to the world of PhDs.
Like an evil cartoon villian
Seems kind of weird that reviewers aren’t listed and credited. We give this research so much weight, because it’s “peer reviewed.” If they’re not even listing the reviewers, how do people really know?
Love the reviewer 2 stereotype joke 🤣
This might be my favorite:)) lol
He’s a reviewer for Nature
For a open access pdf
He does it for free
He takes his job very seriously
He does it because it is the only amount of power and control he will ever have during his pathetic career
PLOS Open source, baby! I worked for Elsevier as an intern for my MLIS and witnessed the evil.
Well somebody got a call wanted free labor.
This is so disappointing, I didn't knew that scientific magazines worked in this way, horrible abuse!
Is there a video showing why there are still unpaid reviewers? If there weren't the system would not persist. And yet, despite all the arguments against it, it still does.
👏👏👏 BRAVO 👏 👏👏
More fair than doing taxes every year.
/standing ovation/
Some people say you should just make journals free because scientific knowledge should be open. I can see that angle especially if it's just a website and it's easy to publish with low overhead costs. If you're printing, distributing, etc. those staff still need to be paid somehow. I say just pay the reviewers like any contractor. In fact, I say go a step further and pay your scientists/authors royalties. Book authors make money on their hard earned publication. Scientific research is no doubt similar (in my opinion arguably more time, money, and labor intensive). Sure, bias is an issue, but there are ways to control for that.
Better yet, male it free with minor ads , so the companies would pay for all the costs not the community.
This is a loose thread in the fabric of society and education
I believe many have had this exact phone call in their dreams. I'm glad you have finally made it a personal reality. How did it feel?
I used to work in research. Many get paid via stipends which work out to be less than what you'd get paid at McDonald's while still forcing you to be on a continual treadmill of proving yourself, while people above you abuse you and tell you that you should be happy to do it "for the science." It's not unlike art, where you're supposed to be happy to be poor and starving if you get to participate in your passion. As a result, I went into medicine. Unfortunately, this was a bit of a naive choice. I sort of think a lot of the problem stems from both professions being old with no incentive to change. For example, I have friends in computer science, and while that's still a science, it's a new science and they seemed toil in futility much less.
I want to throw up a little.
Who's next..... This is really the challenge that social has magnified in that we create tribes and communities based on shared beliefs. When the curtain is pulled back and you really know how the sausage is made, your belief system is fractured. You still have appreciation for the end product - SCIENCE - but you know how they got to the end result. You become a non-believer in a pool of believers. You want people to listen to you and know what you know, but then you become the heretic. The thing you appreciated and valued has now become the thing you disdain and loathe. Because the thing you really appreciated - the science AND the community - has now turned its back on you.... who's next...
I see you have started using your mobile instead of what looked like a power bank to me to show your phonecalls in the skits.
It was an external hard drive from 2003
FOR FREEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Yeahhhh…. Can someone please explain this? I really don’t understand how they keep getting away with this. Maybe if you are a top scientist or doctor, you’ve got other fundings ? Or paid holidays ? In other words, it only works for the top ones?
This seems very personal. . . Should we be worried?
This is epic!👍👍👍
They condition you starting when you're young and ungraduated!
The results of research that was funded by taxpayer money should be freely available to taxpayers. I pay for it, I want to see what comes of it.
Something something sci-hub something something
Makes perfect sense
But they did pay! ...in *exposure*
Boss move.
Fantastic