正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

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 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

2 条评论

Moritz Schumann 的头像

Moritz Schumann1 年前

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…

Cheshire 的头像

Cheshire1 年前

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

相关视频

“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

67,835 次观看 • 1 年前

Evasion of peer review is a hallmark of pseudoscience. But even more insidious is the obviation of scientific scrutiny by publishing in pseudoscientific journals that exist to provide an illusion of scientific legitimacy.

Evasion of peer review is a hallmark of pseudoscience. But even more insidious is the obviation of scientific scrutiny by publishing in pseudoscientific journals that exist to provide an illusion of scientific legitimacy.

Dr. Jonathan N. Stea

15,784 次观看 • 1 年前

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

240,665 次观看 • 11 个月前

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

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

338,425 次观看 • 3 年前

Takanori's paper is out in Nature Communications! We rationally engineered artificial DNA-AuNP motor with high speed and long run-length comparable to motor proteins! We sincerely appreciate reviewers, and hope you enjoy our paper and 59 pages of peer review file!

Takanori's paper is out in Nature Communications! We rationally engineered artificial DNA-AuNP motor with high speed and long run-length comparable to motor proteins! We sincerely appreciate reviewers, and hope you enjoy our paper and 59 pages of peer review file!

Ryota IINO 飯野亮太

12,122 次观看 • 1 年前

We are excited to see the fan film sequel Jason Rising 2 is getting ready to go into production. We loved the first film (Review link below) and cannot wait to see what Red Crow Films had in store next. Watch the sequel trailer below and contribute to the production below and gain perks! Our review of the first film: Crowdfunding for sequel:

We are excited to see the fan film sequel Jason Rising 2 is getting ready to go into production. We loved the first film (Review link below) and cannot wait to see what Red Crow Films had in store next. Watch the sequel trailer below and contribute to the production below and gain perks! Our review of the first film: Crowdfunding for sequel:

Friday The 13th: The Franchise 🪓

11,783 次观看 • 8 个月前

"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 次观看 • 9 个月前

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

11,965 次观看 • 1 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 年前

🧵 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 次观看 • 2 年前

Dr. Judson Welcher trying to act like he doesn’t know what “scientific methodology” is, and what it means for something to be “peer reviewed,” is so disingenuous. He’s obfuscating because he’s clearly used no peer-reviewed scientific methodology in forming his supposed scientific conclusions. Peer-reviewed scientific methodologies are steadfast principles one employs when conducting a certain type of analysis, like accident reconstruction, for instance. It’s the equivalent to how open-heart surgeons are trained to conduct open heart surgery, for instance. Across the industry, open heart surgeons are similarly trained, and there’s a relative consistency in their work. This is because they employ scientific methodology when conducting their operations. Scientific methodology does not change and isn’t something that can’t be spoken about, despite Dr. Welcher’s desperate attempts to feign ignorance to the process—suggesting that he couldn’t have utilized peer-reviewed scientific methodologies in his experiments in this case because he “can’t submit his analysis to peer review” claiming that he’s “not allowed to give this (his analysis) to people outside the court.” This is utter absurdity and Welcher knows it. He knows that Alessi is asking him what peer-reviewed scientific methodologies and principles he relied upon to conduct his analysis in this case! Alessi’s obviously not asking Welcher if he submitted his case analysis in for peer review. Why are all the Commonwealth witnesses like this? #Aperture #KarenRead #JudsonWelcher #FreeKarenRead #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #KarenReadRetrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe

Dr. Judson Welcher trying to act like he doesn’t know what “scientific methodology” is, and what it means for something to be “peer reviewed,” is so disingenuous. He’s obfuscating because he’s clearly used no peer-reviewed scientific methodology in forming his supposed scientific conclusions. Peer-reviewed scientific methodologies are steadfast principles one employs when conducting a certain type of analysis, like accident reconstruction, for instance. It’s the equivalent to how open-heart surgeons are trained to conduct open heart surgery, for instance. Across the industry, open heart surgeons are similarly trained, and there’s a relative consistency in their work. This is because they employ scientific methodology when conducting their operations. Scientific methodology does not change and isn’t something that can’t be spoken about, despite Dr. Welcher’s desperate attempts to feign ignorance to the process—suggesting that he couldn’t have utilized peer-reviewed scientific methodologies in his experiments in this case because he “can’t submit his analysis to peer review” claiming that he’s “not allowed to give this (his analysis) to people outside the court.” This is utter absurdity and Welcher knows it. He knows that Alessi is asking him what peer-reviewed scientific methodologies and principles he relied upon to conduct his analysis in this case! Alessi’s obviously not asking Welcher if he submitted his case analysis in for peer review. Why are all the Commonwealth witnesses like this? #Aperture #KarenRead #JudsonWelcher #FreeKarenRead #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #KarenReadRetrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe

Olivia

39,083 次观看 • 1 年前

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 次观看 • 5 个月前

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

1,406,858 次观看 • 2 年前

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

#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

26,336 次观看 • 2 年前

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 次观看 • 3 年前

Watch Trevor Xu speak on Tagger's upcoming update in BNB Chain AI Hack, weaving manual labeling and peer-driven data review into a more robust #DeCorp data pipeline, laying the groundwork for a smoother AI Copilot labeling experience. Be rewarded more in proportion to the manual groundwork you contribute, as this forms a robust base for our automated systems.

Watch Trevor Xu speak on Tagger's upcoming update in BNB Chain AI Hack, weaving manual labeling and peer-driven data review into a more robust #DeCorp data pipeline, laying the groundwork for a smoother AI Copilot labeling experience. Be rewarded more in proportion to the manual groundwork you contribute, as this forms a robust base for our automated systems.

Tagger

22,231 次观看 • 1 年前

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

This is a Neurosurgeon at UCLA He has a patient that has brain tumors 🚨 UnitedHealthcare has denied his patient a MRI for lifesaving imaging and THEY’RE DENYING DOING PEER TO PEERS A Peer to Peer is how doctors could appeal the insurance company decision “So UnitedHealthcare has once again disappointed me as an insurance company because they not only denied an MRI for one of my patients that needed advanced sequences for tumor surgery, but they denied a peer to peer. Now, I thought things were supposed to get better after all the complaints on social media, the heat that they've had from all the public opinion. But to take away the peer to peer process and have us fill out a form that they're going to fax to us at some unknown time and date, this patient literally needs the SARI so that we can do a safer brain tumor surgery, and yet now they're removing the avenues through which we can even apply for that. — UnitedHealth, if you are going to deny our ability to order scans or labs that are crucial for carrying out safe patient care, at least make the appeal process easier so that we can do so”

This is a Neurosurgeon at UCLA He has a patient that has brain tumors 🚨 UnitedHealthcare has denied his patient a MRI for lifesaving imaging and THEY’RE DENYING DOING PEER TO PEERS A Peer to Peer is how doctors could appeal the insurance company decision “So UnitedHealthcare has once again disappointed me as an insurance company because they not only denied an MRI for one of my patients that needed advanced sequences for tumor surgery, but they denied a peer to peer. Now, I thought things were supposed to get better after all the complaints on social media, the heat that they've had from all the public opinion. But to take away the peer to peer process and have us fill out a form that they're going to fax to us at some unknown time and date, this patient literally needs the SARI so that we can do a safer brain tumor surgery, and yet now they're removing the avenues through which we can even apply for that. — UnitedHealth, if you are going to deny our ability to order scans or labs that are crucial for carrying out safe patient care, at least make the appeal process easier so that we can do so”

Wall Street Apes

782,676 次观看 • 1 年前