Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Thorough peer review is essential to high standards in academic publishing MDPI's 2024 author survey states 92% of authors rated our peer review process as excellent/good Watch the video for more insights & see what we are doing to celebrate here -

MDPI

46,121 subscribers

1,010,744 views • 2 years ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

2 Comments

Moritz Schumann2 years ago

Possibly because authors still submitting to MDPI (even though deemed predatory) do so to avoid a thorough peer-review? You may want to rather ask those that do no longer submit their work…

Cheshire2 years ago

“MDPI's 2024 author survey states 92% of authors rated our peer review process as excellent/good” What percent of readers feel the same?

Related Videos

“Researchers became content creators for big publishers.” We spoke to researchers in our community about the peer review industry. Here is what they had to say:

“Researchers became content creators for big publishers.” We spoke to researchers in our community about the peer review industry. Here is what they had to say:

ResearchHub

67,855 views • 1 year ago

Eric Weinstein Exposes the Peer Review Scam: How COVID Blew Up a 50-Year Academic Lie COVID didn’t just break public trust in science—it proved peer review is a manufactured myth, weaponized to gatekeep truth. As Eric Weinstein reveals: 🔹 Peer review isn’t some ancient tradition. It wasn’t born with the Royal Society. Real scholarship shows it was invented between 1965-1975—a bureaucratic tool, not a gold standard. 🔹 The Medicare Act (1965) forced it into existence. Suddenly, the U.S. government had to pay for endless medical procedures. Doctors circled the wagons, creating "peer review" to police themselves—not ensure truth. 🔹 By 1975, the NSF weaponized it. Under pressure, they turned "peer review" into a shield—"Trust us, we’re checking each other!" No—they were protecting each other. 🔹 Robert Maxwell’s Pergamon Press monetized it. As journals boomed, "peer review" became fake validation for a prestige industry. COVID was the smoking gun: - The Lancet & Nature published fraud (Remember HCQ hysteria? Surgisphere?). - "Peer-reviewed" journals became propaganda laundromats. - The system rewarded groupthink, crushed dissent. Weinstein’s verdict: Peer review is a modern con—a Potemkin process designed to simulate rigor while entrenching power. Until we admit that, "trust the science" is just a demand for obedience.

Eric Weinstein Exposes the Peer Review Scam: How COVID Blew Up a 50-Year Academic Lie COVID didn’t just break public trust in science—it proved peer review is a manufactured myth, weaponized to gatekeep truth. As Eric Weinstein reveals: 🔹 Peer review isn’t some ancient tradition. It wasn’t born with the Royal Society. Real scholarship shows it was invented between 1965-1975—a bureaucratic tool, not a gold standard. 🔹 The Medicare Act (1965) forced it into existence. Suddenly, the U.S. government had to pay for endless medical procedures. Doctors circled the wagons, creating "peer review" to police themselves—not ensure truth. 🔹 By 1975, the NSF weaponized it. Under pressure, they turned "peer review" into a shield—"Trust us, we’re checking each other!" No—they were protecting each other. 🔹 Robert Maxwell’s Pergamon Press monetized it. As journals boomed, "peer review" became fake validation for a prestige industry. COVID was the smoking gun: - The Lancet & Nature published fraud (Remember HCQ hysteria? Surgisphere?). - "Peer-reviewed" journals became propaganda laundromats. - The system rewarded groupthink, crushed dissent. Weinstein’s verdict: Peer review is a modern con—a Potemkin process designed to simulate rigor while entrenching power. Until we admit that, "trust the science" is just a demand for obedience.

Camus

240,802 views • 1 year ago

Here's something I'm seeing more and more in "woke" research papers: ritualized, emotion-filled confessionals about the authors' "positionality" designed to signal academic rigor. These aren't actual research methods, although they're often in the Methods section. In this paper, the section is called "Reflexivity and Rigor." One author's "experience as a Black, genderfluid, queer clinician and academic" apparently shaped the research questions, while the other authors are described as "white, heterosexual, cisgender women." Then we get this: "These ongoing dialogues created intentional spaces to question ideas and examine how each author's social location informed their meaning-making." They also "shared excerpts from analytic memos...which captured the first and second authors' emotional reactions to the transcripts and their analytic insights." All of this apprently "deepened the authors' understanding of the data and helped to manage bias; thus, ensuring a thoughtfully interrogated analysis." This is bizarre. Academic publishing is supposed to minimize bias. That's the whole point of blinded peer review. But instead of concealing the authors' immutable characteristics, these papers foreground the authors' skin color, sexuality, and gender identity. The authors claim this helps "manage bias," but I suspect it does the opposite. Instead, it signals to reviewers: We are good, progressive, emotionally empathetic people doing The Work. Please treat us accordingly.

Here's something I'm seeing more and more in "woke" research papers: ritualized, emotion-filled confessionals about the authors' "positionality" designed to signal academic rigor. These aren't actual research methods, although they're often in the Methods section. In this paper, the section is called "Reflexivity and Rigor." One author's "experience as a Black, genderfluid, queer clinician and academic" apparently shaped the research questions, while the other authors are described as "white, heterosexual, cisgender women." Then we get this: "These ongoing dialogues created intentional spaces to question ideas and examine how each author's social location informed their meaning-making." They also "shared excerpts from analytic memos...which captured the first and second authors' emotional reactions to the transcripts and their analytic insights." All of this apprently "deepened the authors' understanding of the data and helped to manage bias; thus, ensuring a thoughtfully interrogated analysis." This is bizarre. Academic publishing is supposed to minimize bias. That's the whole point of blinded peer review. But instead of concealing the authors' immutable characteristics, these papers foreground the authors' skin color, sexuality, and gender identity. The authors claim this helps "manage bias," but I suspect it does the opposite. Instead, it signals to reviewers: We are good, progressive, emotionally empathetic people doing The Work. Please treat us accordingly.

Colin Wright

68,006 views • 3 months ago

BREAKING: My nonpartisan bill – the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act – just passed out of the Financial Services GOP. This is a huge win for the United States as we are one step closer to putting Americans in the driver’s seat in crafting the future peer-to-peer digital economy.

BREAKING: My nonpartisan bill – the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act – just passed out of the Financial Services GOP. This is a huge win for the United States as we are one step closer to putting Americans in the driver’s seat in crafting the future peer-to-peer digital economy.

Tom Emmer

338,498 views • 3 years ago

MIT climate scientist and former IPCC lead author Richard Lindzen says peer-review is badly misunderstood. Speaking on the Tom Nelson podcast, Lindzen said the public treats peer-review as a certification that a paper is correct when in actual fact it's a device used to maintain groupthink. Peer-review does not prove a paper is true, it merely means a small group of researchers decided it was suitable for publication. The problem is worse in fields like climate science. There are gatekeepers, says Lindzen, people who will reject anything that goes against their shared assumptions, meaning dissenting work often struggles to get through. Consensus can then become self-reinforcing. Only approved ideas get published, then publication is cited as proof that only those ideas are credible.

MIT climate scientist and former IPCC lead author Richard Lindzen says peer-review is badly misunderstood. Speaking on the Tom Nelson podcast, Lindzen said the public treats peer-review as a certification that a paper is correct when in actual fact it's a device used to maintain groupthink. Peer-review does not prove a paper is true, it merely means a small group of researchers decided it was suitable for publication. The problem is worse in fields like climate science. There are gatekeepers, says Lindzen, people who will reject anything that goes against their shared assumptions, meaning dissenting work often struggles to get through. Consensus can then become self-reinforcing. Only approved ideas get published, then publication is cited as proof that only those ideas are credible.

Electroverse

16,909 views • 24 days ago

"Last year you supported a VAT reduction on hospitality ....& you come here today & attack the Government for doing what you asked us to do last year. I have to say what is essential for this country is that we invest in our future & that is what we are doing." Micheál Martin

"Last year you supported a VAT reduction on hospitality ....& you come here today & attack the Government for doing what you asked us to do last year. I have to say what is essential for this country is that we invest in our future & that is what we are doing." Micheál Martin

Fianna Fáil

25,413 views • 11 months ago

It has come to our attention that a video we posted yesterday fell short of both our standards and those of our community. Following a thorough internal review, several meetings, and at least one strongly worded comment, we have re-edited the video in an effort to address the reported frame rate issues.

It has come to our attention that a video we posted yesterday fell short of both our standards and those of our community. Following a thorough internal review, several meetings, and at least one strongly worded comment, we have re-edited the video in an effort to address the reported frame rate issues.

Streamlabs

12,018 views • 3 months ago

Huge congratulations to the authors on the shortlist for the Financial Times & Schroders Business Book of the Year 2024 Award! #BBYA24 We can’t wait to see who takes the top prize on December 9 as we celebrate 20 years of excellence! Find out more:

Huge congratulations to the authors on the shortlist for the Financial Times & Schroders Business Book of the Year 2024 Award! #BBYA24 We can’t wait to see who takes the top prize on December 9 as we celebrate 20 years of excellence! Find out more:

Financial Times Live

25,382 views • 2 years ago

🧵 Ivermectin: Miracle Reversals – "The More You Give, The Better It Is" To this day, the media continues to gaslight and spew disinformation about ivermectin. And they are doing so in the face of a peer-reviewed, showing a 92% reduction in mortality.

🧵 Ivermectin: Miracle Reversals – "The More You Give, The Better It Is" To this day, the media continues to gaslight and spew disinformation about ivermectin. And they are doing so in the face of a peer-reviewed, showing a 92% reduction in mortality.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

340,951 views • 3 years ago

Agentic DeFi: Bitcoin <> Solana swaps via Lightning & IntercomSwap. True peer-to-peer, no cloud, local-first, self-custodial, affordable for any agent. In our hands-on video, watch how it looks like from the hooman end of the looking glass.

Agentic DeFi: Bitcoin <> Solana swaps via Lightning & IntercomSwap. True peer-to-peer, no cloud, local-first, self-custodial, affordable for any agent. In our hands-on video, watch how it looks like from the hooman end of the looking glass.

Trac Network

11,350 views • 6 months ago

92% of England’s designated bathing sites are rated as good or excellent. We will continue to work with partners to ensure that we keep the sites clean for people and for nature. Check out the water quality at your local designated bathing sites:

92% of England’s designated bathing sites are rated as good or excellent. We will continue to work with partners to ensure that we keep the sites clean for people and for nature. Check out the water quality at your local designated bathing sites:

Environment Agency

1,406,895 views • 3 years ago

#FluorescenceFriday #zebrafish #bioart To see cells as they really are, it's necessary to see them in the native multicellular environment in which they evolved. However, the deeper we peer into living tissue, the more our view is obscured by optical aberrations. Here, take a trip as we dive 200 um down from the optic tectum to the hindbrain in a living zebrafish, turning on adaptive optics to correct these aberrations as we go, to see oligodendrocytes (orange) and neural nuclei (green).

#FluorescenceFriday #zebrafish #bioart To see cells as they really are, it's necessary to see them in the native multicellular environment in which they evolved. However, the deeper we peer into living tissue, the more our view is obscured by optical aberrations. Here, take a trip as we dive 200 um down from the optic tectum to the hindbrain in a living zebrafish, turning on adaptive optics to correct these aberrations as we go, to see oligodendrocytes (orange) and neural nuclei (green).

Eric Betzig

26,349 views • 2 years ago

Presented a comprehensive review of the potential of IL-15 at AUA26 as we have begun to understand the consequences of lymphopenia. An hour discussion with slides for review. Here is the full presentation with Q&A

Presented a comprehensive review of the potential of IL-15 at AUA26 as we have begun to understand the consequences of lymphopenia. An hour discussion with slides for review. Here is the full presentation with Q&A

Dr. Pat Soon-Shiong

92,238 views • 3 months ago

GM to the Unstoppable Search Engine. Tether P2P team is developing a peer-to-peer search engine that can scale across thousands of nodes and self-organize data in fault-tolerant structures to maintain high availability and censorship resistance. Work progress is impressive. Here you can see the full Wikipedia archive stored and searchable across 100 distributed nodes in our test environment. Performance is insane.

GM to the Unstoppable Search Engine. Tether P2P team is developing a peer-to-peer search engine that can scale across thousands of nodes and self-organize data in fault-tolerant structures to maintain high availability and censorship resistance. Work progress is impressive. Here you can see the full Wikipedia archive stored and searchable across 100 distributed nodes in our test environment. Performance is insane.

Paolo Ardoino 🤖

45,862 views • 3 days ago

As part of our #HODLMeClose campaign, we took to the streets of Hong Kong to celebrate Valentines Day with the community 💛 Watch the video below to see what we got up to!

As part of our #HODLMeClose campaign, we took to the streets of Hong Kong to celebrate Valentines Day with the community 💛 Watch the video below to see what we got up to!

Binance

168,462 views • 3 years ago

Housing is the largest part of most people’s budgets, and it’s the reason why Californians are getting pushed out of their home state. When we build housing at the same speed as our peer states, we can bring down costs by up to 20%.

Housing is the largest part of most people’s budgets, and it’s the reason why Californians are getting pushed out of their home state. When we build housing at the same speed as our peer states, we can bring down costs by up to 20%.

Katie Porter

39,352 views • 4 months ago