Nature Needs a Reviewer

Pay people for work, that’s all we ask

[@DoctorAzmain]

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. ✅

[@ivanvuksanovic1664]

You forgot to add "now pay us 60 dollars a month"

[@WhirlwindHeatAndFlash]

The only people who enjoy working underpaid for zero recognition more is everyone in the healthcare system who isnt a doctor.

[@uncreative54]

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!!!

[@korhanaydemir8366]

Fact check ✔️ provided by Nature

[@WhirlwindHeatAndFlash]

@@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?

[@j.s.r.1126]

Sometimes I forget that all the characters are done by just one person.

[@life.with.too.many.animals9411]

IT'S ALL DONE BY JONATHAN....*nods*

[@BombBunny]

Sometimes I'm not watching and I swear it's suddenly Patrick Warburton

[@Waffles84]

Me too

[@Adamkilla9000]

True that

[@hotdog16000]

What are you talking about? There's internal, cardiology, Mr. Kidneys, Johnathan... doctors just uhhhh all look the same after awhile

[@violetskies14]

Personally I think access to scientific discovery should never be restricted making what publishing companies do with scientific journals evil and them trying to further exploit researchers by having them review unpaid is disgusting.

[@alexwirtz9780]

I say either pay the reviewers (and don't force researchers to pay significant amounts of money to be published) or the content should be free for anyone to access. Under the current system, publishers get to have their cake, eat it, and then sell it to the masses once they are done digesting it. Meanwhile everone actually doing the work to further science and research get screwed over

[@cassiolins1203]

COMMA, DO YOU EVEN?!

[@vidal9747]

@@alexwirtz9780 They should also pay the researchers. You are literally paying to give away your intellectual property...

[@violetskies14]

@@cassiolins1203 you do see the irony of you criticising my grammar using that sentence, right? To be clear, I can use commas, but when I'm tired I forget/don't care enough to use them. Honestly, I don't think it really matters on KZbin, no one is doing their best writing in the comment section.

[@cassiolins1203]

@@violetskies14 Irony indeed. But it's nice to know you can write properly when you want to

[@WordyGirl90]

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!” 😆

[@owains83]

Came looking for point 2!

[@hannahp0806]

And I was here looking for point 1...

[@Thurgoodstubbs.]

lmbo nah I thought the EXACT same things.

[@Jasmixd]

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.

[@magnolia8626]

Lolll

[@waterunderthebridge7950]

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

[@ItsAsparageese]

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

[@BlueGoblin1]

I mean how about operating purely on donation and volunteer work while offering all the knowledge to the public for free.

[@Astor_V]

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.

[@olenickel6013]

Public, state-funded journals with open access should be a thing.

[@waterunderthebridge7950]

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

[@donttouchthisatall]

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]

so let them suffer. Why does it boder you? Unless you would like to do this for living I don't uderstand your point

[@amoral_minority]

@@Ciasteczkowy exactly. Can someone pls explain this?

[@wraitholme]

@@Ciasteczkowy Why does the suffering of others bother me? Really? Have you considered being tested for ASPD?

[@satanic_rosa]

@@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.

[@The_Riot]

@@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.” 🙄

[@Urbanity_Kludge]

All it would take is 100 reviewers for Nature to see this and quit. Of course, since the reviewers are not listed anywhere, how do we know they are real?

[@bryansanchez8158]

"or what? You won't pay me?" That part was so good

[@8584zender]

Or the editor might remember your name the next time you submit to them and flat reject.

[@GoldenPantaloons]

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.

[@waterunderthebridge7950]

Sometimes I just wonder where all the money that journals make go to when they pay neither readers, reviewers, submitters nor really printing (as most is electronic these days) besides their own private coffers

[@KleRoi]

Probably to a few publishing houses' CEOs that are keeping in the dark

[@mokko759]

You already have the answer, you said it yourself: their own private coffers. Besides maintaining the servers that hold all the information and other such basic operations costs, it's just pure, corporate greed.

[@lainet3379]

*their own private coffers* Where else would it go?

[@helena8999]

My mom’s an editor for a scientific journal, and she doesn’t see much money either. She’d change jobs, but she does genuinely like reading and helping along papers. Does make you wonder where the money goes.

[@haleymist09]

Golfing

[@paigeroberts96]

I am currently arguing with the higher-ups at my "prestige" cancer research institute after they decided that research assistants actually don't need desks after all and are moving us all into the lab full time. The exploitation in academia is real🙂

[@mz555]

I ask the gov for funding to do research, ask the public to volunteer as participants, use university time to write up the paper, submit to for peer review (done for free by anonymous colleagues), then the journal charges me to publish my work, or others to look at it (including the gov and the people involved in it...). the publishing process. (we also don't get anything in return for publishing, other than a line on our cv)

[@acastanza]

PLoS actually publicly discloses reviewer activity, not which particular paper you've reviewed (unless you consent), but if you've reviewed a paper for PLoS in, say, 2019, they'll (optionally) link "Review activity for PLoS, 2019" to your ORCID so at least you can put it on your CV. It's not much but it's not nothing. I don't know how many other journals do similar.

[@artemisiaabsinthium1794]

Thank you for acknowledging that it's the libraries that usually pay for journal subscriptions. It's a small detail, but libraries with often tight budgets have to be the meat in the sandwich between users (who still need access to journals) and publishers (with their increasing prices or heavier restrictions). It's not a fun time.

[@achyutkanungo.98]

I seriously feel the level of satisfaction that the man felt. I felt pathetic when I couldn't access articles for my work due to the costs. Screw you, Top Journals.

[@anthonyhadsell2673]

Have you tried scihub? It’s like the Pirate Bay for academia over a hundred million freely accessible published research articles

[@milossimicsimo]

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.

[@MK-xs1qv]

I want to personally send all of these ~prestige~ journals this video

[@marwanabdullmaged1148]

I truly feel you doc. That argument wasn't just humor. Humor here is a means to express your opinion safely.

[@Unc3rtaintyPrinciple]

this is so accurate it's painful. Every time I was a reviewer, they say it's a giant honour, and somehow you do believe that, but then researchers are not allowed to know who reviewed their paper, and i'm not allowed to say what i reviewed. so it's a giant honour that involves a lot of work that no one will ever know you ever did.

[@thejschro]

This hits on so many levels. A huge frustration is when I am peer reviewing and checking a couple references, but I can’t get into because I don’t have access without paying! I’m the one volunteering my time here. Although it would be great to at least receive a nominal fee to review a manuscript (like submitting board test questions), I do like doing it IF it is a cool topic of personal interest because it forces me to read, and allows me to ask the questions that I usually do anyways when I read. It would be nice to have at least an acknowledgement when the paper is published. I don’t understand why that isn’t the case.

[@PWLfr]

Yeah, "reviewed by Dr. whatever" is an important mention, some reviewers can be trusted, and it could illustrate potential conflict of interests

[@lejeilat200]

So the world needs to recognize you, Dr G, alongside some other rising clinician comic-critics, in at least two ways: 1- Something like a new category in The Oscars. 2- With a governing body in the healthcare system to start listening to y'all in their process of improving the system, because you very often skillfully present excellent arguments to address what frustrates us in the system.

[@gwouru]

The award for streamers/youtubers or things like that, is the streamies... the oscars are for movies, emmies are for television... Hugo is for written work... So... unless they're making feature length movies released in theaters, they don't qualify for the oscars.

[@OneMondBand]

That was a very cathartic experience. Thank you for that!

[@sally8708]

I love these so much!! More on insurance companies practicing without a medical license, please!!

[@Yupppi]

It was pretty cool to hear people like Dr. Pak not release his most recent study in journals but rather put it out there for free and let people openly comment and criticize it, essentially doing possibly better job than peer reviews would have (you know how you might get asked to peer review something you don't even understand). Maybe things are slowly changing.

[@snehasowmy7226]

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

[@brendaburrup6293]

"Tristopher" 🤣🤣🤣

[@Lisa4U7Aaron_Modahl]

Brilliant show. Thank you.🌹

[@boringtobe2]

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)

[@BaronVonFisticuffs]

I would love to hear that laugh edited into a version of Thriller. That would be amazing.

[@hithasrivatsan3940]

Incredible work! I love to sit back and watch you keep calling out hypocrisy, and then I share your work with others (while feeling morally superior and smug) and then I continue to dance to the system's tune.

[@richardsnell4536]

I'm so much into the characters . I need a Jonathan of my own😂

[@AldO-HPB]

.. Dr. G and our scientific multiverse of madness. Omniscient and omnipresent. Able to manifest the million faces and realities of medicine and scientific research. Has so many voices and personalities it is almost impossible to know who has been throwing the punches and delivering uppercuts. 👊👊👊 Dr. G, Jonathan, et al., it appears all of you are well appreciated. 🙌

[@jamievenezia7760]

This video deserves way more likes because it’s so painfully accurate and shows how smart doctors actually are,

[@oseyiomoi9276]

The misery that is academia. This is an amazing skit!

[@Adamkilla9000]

The names are the funniest part. TRISTOPHER 🤣

[@ItsAsparageese]

Thanks for having the satisfying conversation for us to all live vicariously through lol

[@dominic5065]

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

[@rokaram8619]

Mine too he was not under our scoop ...

[@NinaWashington]

The hard swallow and pause of realization sends me every time! 😂😂😂

[@bullyguy9710]

You are so good. Please do more. We love it

[@thepuzzlax627]

That evil cackle at the end GOT me.

[@jamesscott2894]

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

[@celesteclausen7598]

After that evil laugh I fully expected "Thriller" to start playing.

[@kunjupulla]

Thank you so much for calling out on such stupid practices in the least offensive way 😊. That's how, a comedian can make changes in the rules. Support from India ❤️💜.

[@kineticmike5361]

This HAS to change someday. It's honestly crazy that scientists get zero compensation for doing all the work. If the journal was non-profit, that would be a different story. How do we change this?? Maybe legislation from government?

[@InTrancedState]

That's the only way I see it happening. It's making a few people way too much money for it to ever change naturally or through competition at this point. You have to treat it like regulating any other billion dollar company.

[@jayl9110]

I just, I'm perhaps more torn on this than I should be. I know two things for certain: 1. Reviewers *absolutely* deserve to be compensated for the work that they do. It's as necessary to scientific advancement as is research and it is by all accounts very time consuming work. 2. Research is heavily tainted by corporate or industry body sponsorship as it is. Given that journals like Nature are for-profit endeavours run by profit seeking publishers, it's hard for me to trust that they wouldn't invite or accept sponsorship of reviewers rather than slightly reducing their profit margin. Maybe I'm too jaded by 21st century capitalism but I do worry that corporate bias would be introduced (and part of me worries that'd be by design)

[@justsomenobody889]

I think if enough high-profile researchers around the world put their heads together on this issue they could start a movement. But first they'd have to get their heads out of their asses..

[@nj.7325]

@@jayl9110 I recognise I don't know enough about this but how do they find reviewers anyway? It's personal contacts I think. If the selection criteria is treated like any other job's, and you're paid for performing the review as per your level of qualification rather than the content or final quality of it then that should involve a lot less bias? I think that allowing reviewers to be paid has the potential to introduce bias and a lot of potential to reduce the heavy industry body bias already present. Plus free labour for public benefit (where it's not actually volunteering) really shouldn't be allowed to be a thing from a humanitarian standpoint.

[@kineticmike5361]

@@jayl9110 Paying the reviewers might help other aspects of the publishing process which can help compensate for this bias. For example, scientists will be more willing to spend significant amounts of time reviewing the research, which would improve the quality of the literature review (as long as we don't make a system which incentivises quick review times). Legislation might be able to prevent sponsorship of specific reviewers

[@ceciliavernes9097]

Thank you for mentioning the libraries and the huge subscription costs.

[@moonlightwolf]

Reminds me so much of when my undergraduate thesis advisor was trying to explain the process of getting my results published

[@InfinityFishing]

That evil laugh in the end so well deserved ahaha

[@ippolitius]

When I started college to read a journal you just had to go get it off the shelf. Then they went digital had to read them on the library computer, then they were available via the college intranet by loging into the library, and by the time I left they were only available to studebts studying specific majors. All in a short 5 year sint. All due to increases in licenses , went from buying a few copies to charging exorbitant amounts for a subscription.

[@sandypiper9454]

So true. Publishers have become monopolies that are out of control with their fees.

[@drhandle4498]

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.

[@027atulyakumar2]

I asked the same question when i learned how nature works . Thank god in India our ICMR nd other institutions are owned by the govt. nd they pay everyone , even the med students and don’t even charge it’s readers.

[@waydet6950]

I would have loved to see the real conversation that sparked this video. Amazing

[@ilkaysanl8907]

You’ve made me laugh so bad with that laugh 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@frankzaffuto3670]

"Then what, you won't pay me?" *Laughs in 'you have no power here'*

[@atanu_d_roy]

Origin of Joker.

[@dgcostarica1]

This experience was enhanced by the enormous P&G ad that hovered below the video screen 😂😂😂

[@Dr.E7HER]

There’s no way they don’t punish you for declining them though. Good luck getting published in Nature after turning down their offer of nothing

[@petrabanjarnahor229]

Well what if there's another publisher that pay the reviewer

[@er00ic]

@@petrabanjarnahor229 There isn't any publisher that pays reviewers.

[@Nightraven26]

Publishing is overrated imho

[@ShawnGoodmanJazz]

You forgot the most important honor… another line on your CV!

[@justsomenobody889]

Don't forget, they also get advertising revenue from pharmaceutical companies. No conflicts of interest there!

[@jamppa350]

Glad that nowadays there are some free platforms that shares articles on every science domain(illegaly tho). God bless the internet!

[@adrianmole90]

I can't decide whether I'd like to pull a Mallory Weiss syndrome or laugh out loud. Well done Sir!

[@muhsalihu]

Please, laugh out loud because the A&E is filled up and we don't want you to go there.🤣🤣🤣

[@Griever78]

I love Tristopher! And I totally got that that laugh was real. Haha!

[@kathrynbiglin3124]

I read the title Nature as in Mother Nature and thought, "ya damn straight!". Then I watched and also thought "ya damn straight!".

[@resourceress7]

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 :)

[@totallycrazystudios1801]

"Like an evil cartoon villain" Lol!🤣

[@bharathsharma6280]

Haha this feels like telemarketing 101.

[@motleybreuu]

As a medical student with lots of unanswered questions that seem one click away but are actually buried beneath a bazillion unaffordable dollars, thank you for the logic.

[@Durga-ma]

Bravo 🙌, for highlighting the very convoluted world of Medical research publishing

[@Blyght]

You said 'taint' and it was the best thing ever. 🤣

[@TheBestTuber396]

Let me finish that sentence. If you don’t do this then I will only send your submissions to bad reviewers and give you bad letters if your university asks me when you come up for tenure, or I’ll talk badly about your research and make it harder for you to get a job

[@muhsalihu]

Fortunately for him, he has his clinical job to occupy him.

[@PWLfr]

yeah, I'm not sure he keeps his clinical job if he puts out "shitty" research (at least as reviewed)

[@Nightraven26]

Luckily, depending on where you work, you can have a clinical job without doing any research papers 🤷‍♂️

[@tammyt.9852]

The maniacal laugh at the end? Chef's 💋

[@sjey6396]

"I respectfully decline" is one of my favorite ways to tell people to f*** off

[@MySaucyNuggets]

It’s simple, I see video. I click. Lol thanks for the great content ☺️

[@sowmyasrirama6981]

It's just so... accurate. Sometimes I feel , that's the reason for increased predatory journals ...

[@haleymist09]

"Justopher" I lost it! 😂😂😂😂

[@juliabinford6500]

I live for the names you come up with. Does Tristopher know Jimothy by any chance?

[@aponderer32]

This is brilliant! Thank you Dr. Galucomflecken pointing to major problems in medicine and science while maintaining a light-hearted, humorous attitude. Way to go!

[@letsplaysvonaja1714]

The laughing at the end reminds me of "Heaven? Whatever made you think this is Heaven? This *is* the other place!"

[@pouriya8587]

Thanks for bringing this to light.

[@farshaddehqani3502]

I loveeee you Dr G for bringing the truth to light!

[@esabris2151]

"Science will know!" Best line ever.

[@kayura77]

"Well, when you put it _that_ way..." 🤣

[@mo-hammadabunaser1367]

The GlaucomLaugh is iconic

[@carrierutherford5946]

If one does not set one's own value, the world will certainly not raise it. An Artist learns this quickly!

[@toottoot24]

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

[@ethanstump]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/b3XImGqMp9V7mK8

[@TomJones-wi4nh]

Genuinely curious - Do you do it for Science!, recognition or because everyone else does it? Is saying No ever an option?

[@toottoot24]

@@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.

[@smoothsoulbrotha]

😂😂😂 This is exactly what I was explaining to a friend recently.

[@FacundoMD]

You are the most famous doctor on KZbin !!!!! OR at least the best and funniest I don't care what anyone says !!!!! You are brilliant. STAY SAFE !!!!!!

[@QelDoQ]

On point! But I particularly love your evil villain laugh!

[@avamckinney6521]

the evil laughter had me rolling 😂😂

[@monte314]

Yep. I got a paper in the hopper right now... thankless, but somebody's got to do it...

[@Leahalph]

THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS!!!! Reviewers.... let's get together and end this unethical practice where journals profit off us...

[@won20529jun]

This is actually such an important issue. Thanks for bringing more attention to it!!

[@globalcitizenn]

I expected “Thriller” to start after that laugh

[@Red-wc1br]

I like how the little guy actually beat the big guy in this one

[@thesheel100]

This Doc is a superstar.

[@gilangignasraharjo6138]

That is actually a brilliant idea... let's start doin that people!

[@socceratesmedicine]

The heart of evidence based medicine depends on research. This is a great video that sheds light on this complex process. Job well done

[@lenaeospeixinhos]

I felt this in my bones (as a scientist, not as someone who has ever or will ever be asked to be a reviewer, introduce hysterical laughter)

[@olidouze8022]

I love that you talk a lot about that topic. Needs more awareness!

[@seraph5765]

Nature and the CDC should team up in one of these. They'd be like the Avengers but for incompetence.

[@videt7459]

Dermatology could've made an appearance to treat that savage burn.