I would love to hear more of Professor Moriarty's rants.

The first ever Brady Haran cliffhanger... more intense than 90% of shows/movies I've ever seen, too.

If this bad photoshop gets through how many good photoshops get through?

What happened next? In case you missed the link high in the video description AND the annotation (in which case you will probably also miss this): kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nMl5iMt5vNnVnHk.html The nottinghamscience channel has long been home to extra bits from sixty symbols!

I WANT THE REALLY TROUBLESOME ASPECT

I've repeatedly encountered reviewers (usually just one of the bunch on each review round) who are clearly just looking for any excuse to reject, grasping at farther and farther straws. Some make it fairly evident that they have competing research efforts, by asking us to add statements about how the approaches in papers they ask for citations to are unequivocally superior and should be pursued instead. One even demonstrated that they've staked their reputation on the assumption that tons of research that's being built upon is wrong, by asking us to cite several papers that had already been refuted by multiple groups, conspicuously all with one author in common. Gee, I wonder who that reviewer was?

It's cute that this is cut into two videos, but this would be far more effective for other people to link and discuss if it were in one video. I want to link this to someone who I think would benefit from it but I also have to explain to him how to horse around to find the second video.

It's mind blowing that the paper made it passed peer review.

wow that was some reeeeeally bad photoshop Bad enough to make me suspect it was intended to be that bad. Journal tolling maybe just to see if it would pass peer review.

More SixtySymbols videos! I've missed these!

To the people asking why the author isn't anonymous: If it were anonymous and a peer decided it was good, they could easily say they worked on the project. Or whatever.

'some are more human than others' that was a great line im gonna to use that from now on.

What was the troubling aspect? YOU CAN'T LEAVE US HANGING LIKE THAT!

"For Zarquon's sake" I freaking love the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy reference!

I think this might be an example of an unintended consequence of "publish or perish". Making research grants and academics' employment dependent on publishing papers doesn't encourage good, honest research. It encourages publishing as many papers as possible with little regard for quality. It encourages claiming authorship despite minimal or no contribution. When people are put in a position of needing to choose between remaining employed and behaving ethically we might benefit from questioning the system that put them there. Better peer review and punishing fraudulent researchers only treats the symptoms.

Genius cut there at the end.

Loved this video, particularly the cliff-hanger ending!

"For Zarquon's sake." -- I laughed so hard.

As a photographer, that image was immediately hilarious.

As a regular user of the TEM and a research student dealing with similar things, i was shocked, to say the least when i saw this published last year. its unbelievable how that could pass the editor AND 2-3 reviewers! and as a sidenote, its really hard to edit TEM images due to the background noise. the magnetic lasso can only work to an extent but once the image is zoomed in, the edits become glaringly obvious.

I am waiting patiently on the edge of my seat Brady.

My dad had a paper that sat with one reviewer for seven years.

That ending was golden xD

Would it be feasible to have a double blind peer review? So not only do the peers remain anonymous, but the paper's authors do too, at least until (if) it has been published. I suppose you might still be able to tell it was written by a friend of yours if you know exactly what they were researching but there'd be a bit more doubt, and it could lower the chances of being biased as you won't know who wrote the paper until after you've reviewed it.

not to mention the "nanorods" aren't even on formvar in some of those sections, just hovering like magic

RIP, Pr Phil Moriarty.

Wow I can't believe they actually thought they would get away with that.

It's pretty entertaining when Prof. Moriarty gets worked up! It must make reading the newspapers a bit arduous for him though..

Thank you very much for making this video. I have been wondering for quite awhile how papers get submitted. Question though: If I don't have any real credentials in physics but have a concept, and have never written a paper before, it is acceptable to draft a paper as a general concept and submit it? I have this concept of how 9 dimensional space could work but have no idea the math behind why we 'need' them in string theory. If I simply explained the idea with some diagrams and didn't have a lot of math, and maybe even present multiple sub-concepts, would that be acceptable?

_“(...) scientists are human and some are more human than others.”_ ~prof. Phil Moriarty

Here is how I almost missed the rest of this video: KZfaq takes me to the "share" vignette when the video is over so no description. KZfaq doesn't activate annotations automatically so, I have to do it manually. The only way I could see it was the top comment from sixty symbols. Close call... but understandable.

damn ending on a cliff hanger

So what was the "really troublesome aspect"?

Saved by the bell, Dr. Moriarty :) As a fledgling researcher, that photoshop job done to falsify data made me throw up in my mouth a bit.

Check the vid description guys, there is a link to the rest of the video!

Is the audio messed up on this? I got all everything left speaker only.

I wanna hear what the really troublesome aspect is now :(

I love that ending

Why doesn't the journal edit your name out of the paper before the journal submits it to your peers?

wow, Its easy to see how people miss detail. Look at how many people are asking "what happened next"

It depends quite a bit on the field. In hydrology at least the field moves forward "one death at a time."

That milk on the shelf is gonna spoil if you don't pop it in the fridge!

120-130 papers? That's an impressive number!

This is kind of unrelated to the video but I think it is an interesting question: There are three spaceships in space. With respect to the first one, the second one and the third one are each moving at 99% of the speed of light towards each other. Now, from the point of view of the second spaceship, how fast is the third spaceship moving? Is it moving at 198% of the speed of light? In addition, lets say the third spaceship fired a laser beam in the direction it is moving. From the point of view of the third spaceship, the laser beam would shoot off into space at c. But from the point of view of the 2nd spaceship, the 3rd spaceship appears to be moving faster than c, but light moves at c from any reference frame, so it can't go faster than c. What happens to the laser beam?

really cool vid. thanks!!

did. .did Phil reference hitchhikers guide in this video?

So we never get to know what the *really* troublesom aspect is?

So, if the reviewer is anonymous, great. But the one providing the paper, their name should be anonymous too. That would negate favoritism or vindictive action, and then the paper can be judged on its merit.

is it possible that the paper is legit but the picture was forged and displayed as an illustration?

Question: Why isn't the peer review process double-blind?

Really like the ending - the lawyers got to him :) Think the troublesome aspect was that an untrained professional like his daughter could see that there was something fishy going on.

Is Professor Moriarty from Dundalk or Louth? When he says "paper" it is the strongest Dundalk/Louth accent I've hear in a long time!

That is crazy, I mean I have heard some stories about peer reviews but this is an extreme. I hope these wannabe scientists should be removed from the practice.

Moriarty's been working out!

So....this is not the psycho Moriarty guy from Sherlock?

LOL! By the way Brady... you must have quite some patience, reposting the link again and again although you posted it literally everywhere on this page haha.

what about the story of Newton and Leibniz

that end was so funny hahaha

please help - english speaker from U.S.A. - nobble your paper? does this mean steal from - or sabotage?

Do any of you know the history professor John/Wolfgang Liebeshutez?

WHAT WAS THE REALLY TROUBLESOME ASPECT‽ 

That's crazy! Should have used the magnetic lasso tool ;-)

If peer review is anonymous, is there a chance that you will be sent your own paper to review?

So why isn't the process anonymous in *both* directions?

WHAT'S THE REALLY TROUBLESOME ASPECT?!

Ooh! Let them play Bioshock Infinite and notify them of theories of quantum locking an atom in a fixed point of space. Also notify them of Elizabeth's ability to open tears (impossible, I know, but still interesting to hear their take.)

troublesome aspect is that if they had a 6 year old do it, it might have looked correct and not been noticed?

Lol Moriarty. Sherlock!

..."hello, yes he did cut and paste the images and couldn't be arsed learning photoshop skills either!"

This guy is the best.

Why this channel has no sound ???

Why is the audio only on the left channel?

And the end??

So the paper was withdrawn, but what about the person who submitted it? I hope there were consequences for forging data. Too many people distrust scientists as it is, we don't people like that giving them reason to distrust.

Man, I can't even get started with peer review! I'm a highschool senior and somewhat of a scientific genius, but I can't get my paper on quantum gravity reviewed, because I'm not at a university yet! I could be the next Einstein here! Or not (probably); but we'll see soon.

this is their lawyers!!! hahahaaa

Should be anonymous in both directions. Double blind. Like medical testing.

The problem with the peer review process is that it isn't filtered through FOX News first.

yea were really all human, scientists or not, taking someones word for it is proving to be increasingly difficult for me

So the moral of the story is that I should put "expert photoshop skills" in the relevant skills column of my resume for nanotech research group?

Zarquon!

But who was phone?

Were the authors of this paper simply trolling?

I don't understand why you decided to split this video into two. What's the point of having the rest of the conversation, which was completely relevant in this video, cut off and stuck somewhere else?

If you have the name "Moriarty," you are destined to be an evil genius

Peer review is a hit and miss process. I've always gotten complete nuts who inquire about everything

Taking the excretory fluid.

4:20 omg i say that all the time

omg.... he left us at a cliff hanger!

Brady, I have not had audio on any of your numberphile or Sixty Symbols videos for a couple months. I've reported the issue to youtube repeatedly and they haven't fixed it. I want you to know you're missing views!

Oh for zarquon's sake.

Bias in reviewing a paper from someone you know? If anything, I'd be much more critical, though admittedly, I'd mostly be looking out for certain things I know anyway, so there's the potential for me missing other things. Whelp, maybe several more years until I'll be part of it all.

Well that's really taking the excretory fluid. Looked more like MS Paint than Photo Shop.

what a diabolic laugh :D

I didnt mean it I take it all back hahaha

i immediately saw the photoshop artifacts......

Sixty Symbols nottinghamscience why did you split up the ...

PEER REVIEW = SCIENTISTS STROKING THEIR EGOS

Academia!

Professor Moriarty?! I guess he hates the shit out of Sherlock Holmes...