EXPOSED: Fake Scientists Infiltrating Top Journals!

In this video I share with you the recent findings of fake scientists in top journals.
▼ ▽ Sign up for my FREE newsletter
Join 19,000+ email subscribers receiving the free tools and academic tips directly from me:
andrewstapleton.com.au/newsle...
▶ Become a Master Academic Writer With AI using my course: academy.academiainsider.com/c...
▶ Use my Ultimate PhD Kickstart: 12 Point Success System for Aspiring PhDs to start your PhD strong: academy.academiainsider.com/c...
▶ My best KZbin advice curated into an an easy to follow course, Effortless Academia: academy.academiainsider.com/c...
▶ Applying for a PhD? Get my FREE PhD application resource pack to apply with confidence: www.subscribepage.com/freeapp...
▶ Learn what I wish I had known before starting my PhD in my ebook bundle: academiainsider.com/ebook-bun...
................................................
▼ ▽ TIMESTAMPS
0:00 - gaming publishing
1:01 - Citation ring
2:19 - fake scientists
4:52 - why
6:12 - What we can do about it
8:03 - wrapping up
................................................
▼ ▽ RECOMMENDED ACADEMIC TOOLS AND SERVICES
AI TOOLS
▶ Best PhD Writing Tool - Writefull - link.andrewstapleton.com.au/w... (Get 10% off with my link)
▶ Chat with PDFs, Websites and more: HeyGPT - heygpt.lemonsqueezy.com/?aff=...
▶ Best Literature Search - Litmaps - app.litmaps.co (Get 10% off with code STAPLETON)
▶ Best Literature Review Writing Tool - Jenni.ai - jenni.ai/ (Get 20% off with code ANDY20)
▼ ▽ RECOMMENDED KZbin TOOLS AND SERVICES
▶ VidIQ - vidiq.com/drandy
▶ Camera - Canon EOS 650D amzn.to/3aDOog6
▶ On camera mic - amzn.to/3iMTzx0
▶ Webcam - amzn.to/43a8YyP
▶ Shotgun microphone - amzn.to/34gzcUX
▶ Portable recorder - amzn.to/3kUzF53
▶ Lighting - amzn.to/2YgbAfv
▼ ▽ Socials for shorts and reels
Instagram: / drandystapleton
TikTok: / drandystapleton

[@samsonsoturian6013]

You become an adult when you realize that no one in the world has any frickin clue what they're doing.

[@boredscientist5756]

Hahahahaha so true!

[@Harjawalda]

Yes.

[@agape13]

Glorious!

[@SOLO.DANDELION]

Really.... it always seemed that way that or they were just useless... well its kind of a relief

[@ricardokullock2535]

A friend tried to publish a paper by himself during his phd, in a third world country. It didn't get accepted. A couple of years later, as a posdoc in the USA, in a well known university, he submitted the exact same paper, and it got accepted. The only difference was the institution.

[@DavidLoveMore]

It's going to be hard to get a paper published in a philosophy journal if all the peer reviewers have to agree you exist.

[@simoni6770]

I understand your point hahahahahahahahahahaha. Hilarious

[@gautameunni4141]

😂 LOL

[@Pyrozoid]

well that's assuming they're all empiricists.

[@samephraimshaversjr8864]

😂

[@lindybeige]

I agree. I've been saying for many years that the peer review process, noble though its aim may be, is deeply flawed, and no guarantee of quality.

[@Pongant]

Lindybeige watching Stapleton, now we came full circle

[@hoppingwren]

I once published (genuinely) with a Professor from the London School of Economics who hired me on a small research contract. I really doubt that the paper would have been published if I were the sole author (I'm an ECR at UNSW). I didn't think the paper would get published at all, to this day I don't think it said anything meaningful and I truly believe their name carried so much weight. Thanks for stepping outside academia and continuing to critique it - you're in an interesting position because you understand the world well but you're no longer yoked to it so now you can be really critical of it from outside.

[@hssnov]

It is like a cult. I was forced to add people's name for no reason 😢. It's all my idea my writing and now i need to add 5 names why? Even worse they will put my name at the end

[@hoppingwren]

@@hssnov that really sucks, I'm sorry that happened for you, it's sadly common. That didn't happen for me, there were just 2 authors and I was first. We both worked on it, I had no issues with authorship. but the point I was trying to make is that journals prioritize big names from high ranking universities. I think this is what got that paper published, it wasn't a very insightful paper but it got published because it has an LSE Professor on it. It's similar to what Andy is talking about with people using fake names from real decently ranked universities.

[@hssnov]

@@hoppingwren I found during my research a lot like what you mentioned and Andy but we cannot do anything. I remember the Creator Gate from plosons they mistakenly translated the word to creator they withdraw the journal because they said that! But if you create an alien 👾 author normal the lazy editor will not bother himself to seadch for authors! We are living in a upside-down world.

[@gianluca.pastorelli]

​@@hssnovName at the end is actually good, that's the spot for the project leader. It's as important (or even more important) than the first name. Take advantage of that!

[@leonidasassuncao7958]

@@hssnov You will be the et al, damn it!

[@dsolis7532]

I knew an italian scientist whom literally said to my face that he wouldn't accept anything from people coming from developing countries unless they were from the top universities of Iran, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina. Besides that, and people from those countries but not top unis, everything was desk rejected.

[@sodaa2489]

This !!!!!!!!!

[@WolfgangCola]

Thanks for your content Andy, I think your videos are important and provoke discussion. My (former) field in life sciences is also plagued by AI generated papers, fake data, and probably fake authors too. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the Jonathan Pruitt scandal, a tenured Ecology professor who has now had his position revoked and a slew of his papers retracted from big journals like Science. He has ruined so many people’s careers.

[@jackmaxwell3134]

The problem is not setting more rules, but monopoly. There's only a small bunch of enormous publishers (Elsevier, Springer etc.).

[@Xcalator35]

That's where the rubber meets the road!! Well said! We can go arround and arround but if we fail to notice the fundamental problem nothing will ever change.

[@victoratanasov9680]

yes

[@nondescriptnyc]

I have recently begun publishing in journals published by Frontiers, MDPI, PeerJ, etc. for that precise reason. Traditional publishers have enjoyed the monopoly for far too long, which in my opinion caused their editors to be slow, ineffective, unreasonable, elitist, boring, and so on. Who wants to wait 12+ months for peer review to come back, only to see off-the-mark feedback and factually incorrect suggestions? I am seeing most of the cutting edge papers in Frontiers, MDPI, PeerJ, etc. journals rather than traditional journals these days-and those traditional publishers should really be reexamining their practice.

[@meikke1118]

​@@nondescriptnyc Just be aware that (at least in Europe) MDPI has been recognized for portraying predatory behaviour.

[@loodwich]

I remember the first time a journal asked me to peer-review a paper, I was shocked because they gave me all the persons and all the institutions... OK, I checked it as if I didn't know anybody... later another journal gave me another paper, and they gave me all the links to check all the papers that the authors published in the past. Also, one time, a Journal asked me to review a paper with my old advisor as an author, It was a very intriguing paper; they had a lot of claims that we made in several papers in the past on that laboratory, and only had a new thing, but no one except my old advisor was a member of the laboratory in which I learn all that. I love it when we make a double blinding per review...

[@nondescriptnyc]

Journals have different review policies. Some are single-blind, while others are double-blind. Yet others, some of them top journals in my field, don’t follow blind review process at all. Open reviews have become more popular these days, I believe, at least in STEM.

[@nanotube79]

Thanks, Andy for exposing such fake people's work and the scam that is happening in research publications, it makes us demotivated to publish our own good work.

[@ch.k4580]

I am shocked. I am with you Dr. Stapelton. I like the idea of double blind reviewing! Do you think that this might come one day? Keep going doing this fantastic job!

[@HS-hi6wc]

I'm glad there are people looking into this stuff. Before I knew anything about how academia works and publishing, I didn't even know there was a thing such as predatory journals or conferences. I always mention it because I think if it could help others, then it should. Academia is an entire system that took me a few months to understand, and I'm still learning.

[@violet_broregarde]

Oh I thought this was like random people saying "i have a phd in chemistry and here is my totally legit chemistry paper" and I was fixing to be really impressed. Turns out it's real scientists making up a fake guy to put on their authors list.

[@jacob9673]

Well-whether they’re “really scientists” is debatable. Lots of this happens at bottom-tier journals.

[@violet_broregarde]

@@jacob9673 well i mean i thought this was like sokal squared where some random academics from random fields were publishing in prestigious journals pretending to have PhDs in gender studies etc and fooling the review committee. These are actual science PhDs committing a different type of fraud than that.

[@CraftingHock]

Honestly, the bigger problem is that these publishing papers care about anything other than the substance of the paper. If people are more likely to get their paper read properly because an imaginary friend is listed on the paper, I do not see the harm. The only way I could see it being harmful is if the researchers hoped that peer reviewers would overlook the lack of substance in their papers because of the name on the paper. But again, if that is the case, then there is a larger problem with the peer review process than anything else. But yes, I agree double-blind peer review is the gold standard. I think there should be legislation requiring double-blind peer review from major publishers.

[@alex_9795]

The publishing culture right now it's just so messed up. It's all about quantity rather than quality. Scientists creating authors to increase their chances of getting published is just a symptom of the disease. The publishers definately play a huge role in this but they are not the only problem sadly. This won't stop until academic institutes and funders focus on good quality research (which take times to carry out and publish) rather than number of papers (without really caring about the content).

[@nondescriptnyc]

I believe some people list friends/colleagues as co-authors to manipulate Google Scholar H Index. Including as many co-authors as you possibly can is supposed to be an effective way to boost everyone’s Google Scholar H Index. I know of a community college professor who has never conducted “real” research in her life, yet her H Index is crazy high because her husband, who is a prolific researcher at my institution, puts her name on most of his publications.

[@profdc9501]

Exactly this. The packaging and the label are more important than the product inside, because the product is not consumed. We now have an industry of stockpiling vast amounts of a product that there are quotas to produce but that nobody wants.

[@mellowfellow6816]

Holy corrupt science publishing, Batman!

[@samsonsoturian6013]

This is just Chinese academia. They squeeze hard to get numbers up regardless of any actual work done. One Reddit user showed how he casually received an offer from a Chinese university of two grand for every research paper they gave them.

[@NuclearSavety]

Have stopped reading papers with only chinese authors .... may not ve the most scientific way, but have not enough time in a day to search though all the bs comming from there ...

[@samsonsoturian6013]

@@NuclearSavety there comes a point when you know for a fact they're all frauds. Competition is simply so tight in China that anyone who doesn't cheat is forced out. There was even one point when tons of bicycles littered the streets and had to be loaded onto trucks with backhoes because ride sharing companies were simply dumping lots of proprietary bikes in order to dominate local markets.

[@alex_9795]

Sadly it's not just Chinese academia. It might not be as extreme in other countries but the pressure to publish is getting ridiculous pretty much everywhere.

[@lolguy00]

Indian journals are also full of shit

[@samsonsoturian6013]

@@alex_9795 The UAE's degrees are even more worthless. You buy that paper.

[@GHeinz]

very interesting. i'd love to hear your thoughts/perspective on open access publishing, as i know that has really exploded in recent years, and apparently many institutions/grants are starting to mandate that their researchers publish in open access journals. specifically i'm curious what you would have to say about MDPI. thanks for the content and insight.

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

In this case, I should say, I would absolutely *not* blame the (real) authors for adding their imaginary friends to the author list. I've been a journal editor for a decade now, and can tell that getting a good paper even considered by my own co-editors if they're from the wrong part of the world or not connected to a well-known university is an uphill struggle. The same paper that would fly through review with a "reputable" author will be desk-rejected without one, mostly because the editors fret for the journal's reputation (and by association, for their own). For the same reason, by the way, it's very unlikely that editors in any but the most established journals would agree to have double-blind peer review. The intangible prestige game (with the tons of snobbery and racism it sneaks into the system along the way) is too important in Academia for that to happen.

[@AA-iy4gm]

So these people that add the fake names probably use some program that creates a new name that doesn't have a internet profile anywhere, otherwise it would take a long time to simply guess a fake name without a profile that could backfire.

[@jakubkarwacki1214]

I really dig your videos and I think you should definitely make one on MDPI.

[@gracelloyd3758]

I just graduated with my phd in biomedical sciences. Thank you so much for your videos!! Even though they are among the many things that have propelled me into my current existential crisis. 😅😅😅

[@AlphaNumeric123]

Whoo, love you Andy! You're an important voice, and you've become so valuable to the broader scientific community. You really are meeting a huge need, thank you.

[@heathnieddu6342]

Dr. Stapleton, thanks for your videos. I have a question for you: Are there subscription tiers offered by academic databases to universities that provide different search results? For example, I don't go to a highly-funded university in the United States. I am searching for academic literature in all the same databases I assume everyone else is. These include Academic Search Complete, EBSCO, etc. Is it possible that even if I use the same query on the same database I see different results from a student in another university where that university was able to pay for a higher tier of subscription?

[@ihorarkhypchuk4168]

Interesting point to check articles, thank you! I wonder if it possible to get a grant for something like this to check articles.

[@sergiopeixoto6651]

Everything is being manipulated.

[@sorenk.4344]

for the many computer sciencee conference submission it is double blind peer review. The good thing the names are not at the front, but I find it however still easy on the number of reference of a certain prof to track done form which workgroup it probally comes from.

[@ryancflam]

Double-blind is the way. It reduces so much bias, and all scrutiny is on the science itself instead of the names behind it.

[@johnb6913]

Reviewed a manuscript with fabricated articles, didn;t get to checking the authors, since I gave it the bullet then and there.

[@WG55]

_Some judge of authors' names, not works, and then_ _Nor praise nor blame the writings, but the men._ - Alexander Pope, _An Essay on Criticism_

[@emmanuelameyaw9735]

Thanks Andy, for this trick, I am gonna try this.

[@NotEvents]

🤣

[@victoratanasov9680]

me too

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

Dragan Rodriguez is going to have impressive, multidisciplinary scientific career... Next step: stealing his identity...

[@cedriclothritz7281]

I was wondering what the point of having fake scientists on the paper is until you said that so many peer-reviews are not double-blind. Which I found odd because all of my papers except for one went through double-blind review. Maybe it's just more common in my field (NLP) than in others.

[@sciencelearning2326]

I need a way to contact you privately Dr. Andrew ?

[@FrazerKirkman]

Andy, perhaps you should start a suite of double blind journals?

[@mathewtoll6780]

The first paper I was asked to review they gave me the list of the authors names and insitutions and over the next few days I got notifications on linkedin and researchgate that the authors were looking at my stuff. So they knew who I was. I ended up declining to review as it seemed rather dodgy.

[@michen25]

0:28 so well Said. This is what I teach at my Ethics class.

[@wilurbean]

I wonder if these people that use the fake names, do they sit and sweat, worry, mull it over, loose sleep at night, etc before hitting submit... or do they just click submit and yeet the paper into the ether. Do they have a consciousness?

[@hedleypanama]

#HoldIt When I review a manuscript, I NEVER look for the "prestigious" crap: I just need the STROBE checklist before I actually review the manuscript!

[@nickbrown8729]

Hey man, how do I contact you? Would like to tell you some wild stories about academia in the United States. Really curious how overseas compares.

[@naromsky]

Check out his papers?

[@nondescriptnyc]

He has a website! It is listed under “About” when you click on his profile/name.

[@profdc9501]

If Dr. Stapleton is suggesting that a group of publishing companies beholden only their shareholders should be put in charge of upholding the integrity of academics, academics have truly relinquished any responsibility for their own creations. Academic integrity can not be outsourced. These publishing companies are not needed anymore now that ink, presses, and printed document distribution networks are obsolete. If academics want their work to be taken seriously, they need to take ownership of the publishing process and ensure its integrity themselves.

[@samhitak6216]

Hi Andy! I think it ultimately boils down to self-integrity. Unfortunately this is all too uncommon. By the way, I heard that Hindawi, MDPI and Frontiers have been BLACKLISTED by some countries' governments. I was quite shocked to hear that Frontiers has joined the list. Can you make a video on Frontiers and expose them for the money robbing and fake peer review they're doing?

[@Finnnicus]

Always strange to hear bad stuff about MDPI since the journals from them in my fields (Molecules) are pretty ok.

[@samhitak6216]

@@Finnnicus Well I've read an article which says that MDPI is like in between: it's neither blatantly predatory nor is it 100% authentic.

[@hssnov]

They band them because they suck money very fast from government it's geopolitical stuff. Elsevier tried to make full publishing subscription woth government and universities. That's why gov can publish in 4000EU but not 2000frank! It is not about scam or want so ever. Elsevier bought governments

[@nondescriptnyc]

I have looked at these issues closely, and I agree that Hindawi seems a bit sketchy. Now, when it comes to MDPI and Frontiers, however, it is really curious. I have read some disconcerting allegations about unethical practices; yet, it is also true that, these days, many, if not most, of the high-impact, high-quality, and highly-cited papers in my field appear to be published in journals by these two publishers. I have been reviewing for their journals, as well, and there really has not been anything out of the ordinary besides that they will tell you upfront that they are giving me 10 days to 2 weeks to review (as opposed to traditional journals, which can typically wait months and months…and who needs THAT much time to review in the first place?). I have never encountered a Frontiers/MDPI editor that has gone against my recommendation to reject papers, either. I therefore don’t necessarily believe those “fake peer review” allegations for Frontiers and MDPI journals, given that they seem to be doing a good job disseminating high-quality papers.

[@scienceguys9317]

I published a part of my PhD research with one of their (MDPI) better journals. The peer review process was very normal. I had one positive review with minor revisions and a major revision from the second reviewer, so the editors invited a third reviewer who also suggested that some parts of the paper needed to be changed and reworked. We went through two rounds of revision, and the editors (who were experts in the field) also made some comments that we needed to address before accepting the paper. I know people who have published in other okay journals from MDPI and their review process has been quite serious as well (one of them had a paper in review for 7 months only to be rejected after the required experiments didn't work out). We had a much easier time publishing in BMC whatsoever lol

[@JimSmithInChiapas]

07:04 I'm one of the KZbinrs who often engage in debates with FEs and other purveyors of paranoid, anti-science slop. Every time a scientist responds to this scandal by saying "So what?", he or she pulls the rug out from under us.

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

Odd. An imaginary scientists co-authoring a few articles shouldn't affect curvature of Earth. It may be only an issue if you are trying to convince someone that everything is going fine within scientific establishment. Though this would be as bold claim as FE...

[@JimSmithInChiapas]

​@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 _"An imaginary scientists co-authoring a few articles... ."_ As the uploader pointed out, it's not just "a few" articles. And no, I don't try to convince anyone that "everything is fine" within the academic community. Quite the opposite: I'm one of the few debunkers who regularly calls out other debunkers for ignoring the incidence of scientific fraud and academic malpractice. The issue is credibility: those of us who confront the anti-science slop must inevitably cite published research, and every unethical scientist makes it that much easier for our opponents to ridicule us for doing so.

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

@@JimSmithInChiapas "The issue is credibility:" Then you have to tackle a degree of magnitude bigger issue like fields where there is clearly too much financing business or too much ideology overruling any findings. Sometimes it simply starts being hilarious like during last pandemic in order to stay being pro science you had to believe mutually contradictory stuff as scientific consensus pending where you live.

[@JimSmithInChiapas]

@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 Thanks. I agree. In fact, I've been debating recently in support of someone who pointed out that the damage done to science by financial and political interests is a much larger concern than anything that the FEs are doing.

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

​@@JimSmithInChiapas I mean ideological issues. The first time when I encountered it was recent human evolution. Do you believe human brain being product of evolution? Do you believe that after our lineages split humans have been adapting to local environments? Does it mean that our brain was most likely also undergoing some subtle divergent evolution or at least random genetic drift or bottleneck events? Apparently not, as US social sciences are built on assumption that we're batch of identical clones, recently even a batch of neutered identical clones that only differ by social factors and no biology was in play. That was the thing and that people had their carriers ruined for effectively being pro-evolution which lead me to refer big chunk of scientific establishment as secular creationists.

[@40NoNameFound-100-years-ago]

Actually in academia, and I am speaking here about practical fields like Engineering. Most Professors don't care about the research. They have their own business and have a secured job with good salary in addition to the money they make from their companies. Sobthe truth is no once reallt cares about research whether it's real or fake. If you come to China, you will find all people do this, they cite each other names even without having participated in any part of the paper. I actually do this, with my lab friends, if yiu think about it it ia more profitable... Why publish one paper when you can publish many of them depending on how many collaborations you make with your peers.

[@emmanuelameyaw9735]

😂😂. aka, "If you can cheat, why not cheat." This is not good. Integrity and honesty is a good virtue.

[@40NoNameFound-100-years-ago]

@@emmanuelameyaw9735 @emmanuelameyaw9735 honestly, I agree inyegrity and honesty are good virtue ....I was thinking the same at the beginning.... But I have seen many worse things in academia that made me regret actually choosing that path. There are many bad things, but no one talk about them....because they just can't.....you know the things that when you talk to someone that you and him know exactly what is happening but you feel embarrasse if you start talking about them ...these is the kind of those things.. What shall I say, from nepotism to publish a paper in a certain journal to the peer review process which the author may happen to know the reviewer, that will make the reviewer call the author telling him to write his review for his paper and send ot back to him so that he can upload it to the journal system......many many things.....that people oustide academia know nothing about....and yet people look at those who hold PHD as if they had integrity and should be role models 😅😂😂

[@lolguy00]

We need an AI to condense the information and expose them all. Sick of dealing with fake doctors

[@40NoNameFound-100-years-ago]

@@lolguy00 people are using AI right now to write their thesis and their research papers....get out of the bubble...that academia is Youtobia.

[@user-cm6dv6bq4r]

so what was the iranian scandal about?

[@dasilvaleandro21]

I still do not understand why double blind is not the standard for all fields

[@galveston8929]

Double blind review system will never be adopted by the academia. Most Academics are politicians and double blind review process hurts their grip on power and control.

[@a.a.dagestani7620]

lol , really so funny and sad in the same time

[@rhmoult]

Andy, any idea what the first step would be in creating this system you proposed at kzbin.info/www/bejne/rWWocqd7ipV_mMksi=H32z8lMNyR5keRxB&t=401, wherein scientific papers are judged on the science and not anything else?

[@kanalprobny1927]

Im not sure whether the initiative of such people finding some frauds in publications will change anything.

[@XxNORaGexX]

Typo on your thumbnail?

[@fixfaxerify]

It's ironic how little use is made of objective scientific methods in the process of scientific review and publishing.

[@eimienwanlanibhagui4859]

What classification do these papers belong where a non-living thing was a co-author: Q1, Q2, Q3...???

[@lolguy00]

We need something like chatgpt to find these crooks

[@CedarDrawers]

While perhaps better than nothing, I have some doubts about double blind review. In many cases, I suspect self-citation or advances on prior work will reveal the authors' identities even in a double blind process. Instead of fake authors, I also imagine people trying to give misleading hints that famous researchers worked on a paper by citing their work a lot.

[@gamersimax6623]

Journal Manager here aiming for scopus indexed. For new journals It doesn't matter the name or affiliation, I prioritize immediately based on the country. If my journal has more varied authors from more than 5 different countries (which is one of the requirements for scopus indexing) then i would put it into priority even if there is major revision. I was even tempted once to similarly create a fictional author from another country because the issue lacked international authors...

[@foohoo6991]

you are part of the problem genius

[@gamersimax6623]

@@foohoo6991 But that's just the situation for new upcoming journals looking for international recognition. My journal is already DOAJ sealed and since then got tens of international authors with much higher quality papers...back then I was happy for even 1 international author come in n had to accept low quality papers and even increase the quality myself (the revised paper was the same/no change was made)...N thank god i resisted the temptation but not sure for others tho 😅

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

@@foohoo6991 I think that he would prefer just simply being called part of the scientific community. While it's mostly the same, it would sound much better.

[@andrewiglinski148]

I have a masters degree in astrophysics from a top astrophysics department in the US but I’ve been out of school and working in software for 8 years now. In my spare time I continued to play around with some of the maths around GR and MOND and came across a geometry that not only fits with every bit of experimental data that I can find without the need for the seemingly magical dilation of time, but I can derive a value that fits nearly perfectly on top of probability curves found through direct observation with nothing more than this theoretical geometry as well, and I’ve been denied publication twice. The math is rock solid, it’s entirely consistent with every bit of related experiment, addresses several paradoxes in modern physics and is testable with more accurate measurements… yet not having a PhD or a .edu email address gets me put in the trash immediately.

[@dgstellario4433]

Don't you have an ability to put it on arxiv?

[@naromsky]

Why do we need (human) editors, exactly?

[@gregorschoner9682]

I am not sure about the double blind approach. There is some value in trust in institutions and people. It needs to better grounded and policed

[@DaLiJeIOvoImeZauzeto]

Folks stumbled upon the Andy Dufreshne of Academia.

[@hssnov]

I was doing exactly the same thing tracking an author from certain country and they used to add coauthors from a very far or different country to get there paper accepted. Just to let you know because i am from garbage 3rd world country no one will believe me. 😢 Publisher they care about country's name and authors' name not scientific knowledge even if i make a robot work wothout power no one will believe it. You are (the reader), you will not take me serious because i am nobody. My SV used to say: you think that you will make something better than very developed countries. 😢

[@anthonypriestas6391]

Need to come up with a way to vette the authors without compromising the double blind review process.

[@beancount811]

Feels like an arms race is going to develop at some point: bot farm pumping AI hallucinations one end; journal bot farm trying to stop it; best model wins. I doubt even the best human volunteers can keep up, given that at some point telling BS from reality will get arbitrarily hard and will demand unlimited time.

[@phyarth8082]

Citation ring or self-reference loop if someone made mistake and this mistake jus spread as virus in all papers, is very hard to correct and claim how must be done correctly when weight of citations in many publication are very high. Publish papers you must have 5 minimum reverence to other works and for God sake don't put Wikipedia as source :) In self-reverential loop is hard to created something new, something original, you will be denied as pseudoscience or biggest probability in physics you will be labeled person who stuck in 17 century, today we have computer simulation and all fundamentals laws of Newton , Bernoulli, Fourier, energy conservation law becomes secondary or not required at all to solve practical problems.

[@GwG-aka-TheGoatee]

especially, if you are someone from outside of the "west", you need some "academic" from the west to be even considered to be published. It's all about the money!

[@nyyotam4057]

So add Albert Einstein to the list of authors and once it's accepted for publication, tell the editor you made him up and ask that he is removed 🙂.

[@fzuliani74]

Whoever invented this trick is true genius. Why waste it ?

[@fan_juggler]

Great video, but use of they/them in this context is very confusing, as it confuses with more than one author. I think we can safely call this non-existing person "he", they won't be offended 😌

[@nyyotam4057]

Actually, as you mentioned batman, say that you add Prof. Shi Zhengli (a.k.a batwoman) to your research paper author list. This would undoubtedly make your research immediately read by millions and even though some of them might contact her and discover she does not even know anything about it, who cares? I mean, you wanna get published or not? Just do it 🙂. In the worst case scenario, people will have a good laugh. That's also important in life.

[@stephanaugust1101]

I don't see anything wrong with putting imaginary persons on a paper, since it has nothing to do with the work

[@francishunt562]

You're not serious, are you ?

[@stephanaugust1101]

Why should I care? I wouldn't even care if they have a made up university decree as long as their experiments are valid@@francishunt562

[@alex_9795]

But if I found out someone made up an imaginary person so they could published, I definately would not trust anything else they did and said @@stephanaugust1101

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

@@francishunt562 Well, assuming that editors do their job properly, adding a non existing person on the list shouldn't be an issue, except maybe making editors worried about authors apparently not taking their anti-psychotic meds.

[@temitopeomogbene9090]

@stephanaugust1101 It becomes an issue when considering such papers for bibliometric analysis. Most especially when you make up the last author. Otherwise, academic integrity cannot be over-emphasised.

[@PCSExponent]

Not sure why my comment was deleted. The use of addresses from free email providers is, by itself, not an indication of academic fraud in China. I even had a Japanese colleague who started using a free Chinese email provider (1 6 3) after moving to China. I think part of the issue is that institution emails are considered unsafe; note that Google is unreliable (and often blocked) in China. Incidentally, this comment does not affect claims made in the rest of the video.

[@gracelloyd3758]

👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

[@ruhisarpkaya6873]

Please add the Turkish language option to your videos.

[@Unknown-ki8yk]

Why? can't you learn English?

[@liordagan9342]

You mis spoke. If you did nothing wrong, why wouldn't you want to be in her cross hairs? If she found nothing, one has a great stamp of approval.

[@Xcalator35]

Editors constantly reject submissions based on names, institution and nationality (you, being an Aussie don't have this problem, so you forgot to mention it). That being the case, I'm all in favor of 'cheating' in order to impose some fairness and justice. That's what they deserve. I feel more and more that you are a disappointement and a part of the problem rather than a solution. Your 'soft means' fail miserably. We need strong action, not useless soft talking. And remember, you have to link the fight to the main cause of all this disgrace: the publishing capitalism.

[@francishunt562]

I worked in scientific publishing for many years, and I simply do not accept that submitted papers are rejected on the grounds you claim.

[@othmanaljbory3649]

😅😅😅All of them were made for money. Even university dissertations were made with money. In my eyes, there was nothing academic left. The most important thing was theft. 😂😂😂😂