Based on this YouTube video's total view count of 3.59K views and industry-standard rates, the estimated total earning is $3 - $7 through ad revenue. Historical data is not yet available to calculate daily, weekly, or monthly averages.

Explore Who Did the Analysis? Editors on Disclosure and Peer Review in the Age of AI Agents with 3,589 views, 38 likes, and 0 comments. Experience the impact of this video content that has captured audience attention.

​The editors-in-chief of Science, Nature, Cell, and NEJM AI on what journals now require when AI does the analysis, and who gets the credit. Who Did the Analysis? Editors on Disclosure and Peer Review in the Age of AI Agents A BroadHacks Event | September 22, 2026 | Broad Institute AI agents are now part of how researchers analyze data, write code, and survey the literature. How do priority and credit work when an AI system produces the result first? Standards for AI-assisted publishing are still taking shape and vary between journals. PANELISTS Holden Thorp, Editor-in-Chief, Science Magdalena Skipper, Editor-in-Chief, Nature John Pham, Editor-in-Chief, Cell Arjun (Raj) Manrai, Senior Deputy Editor, NEJM AI; Harvard Medical School Moderator: Stan Bratchikov, Broad Institute Topics: disclosure, reproducibility, code review, peer review at scale, licensing, and credit in the age of AI. *CHAPTERS* 0:00 Roadmap of the discussion 2:01 Panelist introductions 6:42 *Q1: What should PIs write in methods?* 7:33 Pham (Cell) 8:08 Skipper (Nature) 10:50 Thorp (Science) 12:51 Manrai (NEJM AI) [1] 15:02 Skipper: how the community adapts to new reporting tools 16:10 *Q2: What is disclosure for?* Thorp on scientific "gotchas" 18:17 Skipper: how we can fail as a community [2] 21:50 Pham: do scientists really need journals? 24:17 Skipper: how publishing has changed with AI 25:41 *Q3: The code blind spot* [3] 26:28 Pham: what stops editors and reviewers from checking code 28:01 Thorp: daily pitches and current rejection rates [4] 30:03 Skipper: what's most valuable to check at submission 34:05 Manrai: a system that makes review 17 times faster [5][6] 41:40 *Q4: The Millennium Prize controversy* 42:15 Skipper: Do not upload peer-reviewed research to chatbots 43:50 Skipper: credit in the controversy and its ramifications 46:19 Thorp: how to not get scooped by the internet [7] 49:16 Pham: AI doom and gloom, and why humans do research 50:58 *Q5: Peer review monoculture in a world of two AI models* 51:21 Skipper: humans' secret advantage over AI 55:20 Thorp: the Olive Garden problem and AI research 57:40 *Audience Q1: How will publishers handle the volume of AI analyses?* 59:08 Thorp: the analysis storage problem 1:00:00 Manrai: what journals are still hungry for [8] 1:02:27 Pham: the inevitability of trust in research 1:03:43 *Audience Q2: AI editors, and when to stop reviewing* 1:04:08 Thorp: an exciting and terrifying AI future 1:04:42 Skipper: lessons from 30 years of peer review 1:06:31 *Q6: Integrity and self-correction* 1:07:08 Skipper: correction as a driving force of science 1:08:59 Pham: can submissions still be checked at this volume? 1:09:55 Thorp: Science's publication rate in the age of AI 1:11:16 Pham: Elsevier's 153 new integrity hires 1:12:07 *Audience Q3: A special license for the age of AI?* 1:12:25 Skipper: the future of licensing in publishing 1:15:32 Thorp: the issue with CC BY licenses 1:17:12 Skipper: the nuances of small print 1:19:50 *Q7: Who gets the credit in the age of AI?* 1:20:21 Pham (Cell) 1:21:21 Skipper: credit comes with responsibility 1:22:45 Thorp: when LLMs commit crimes, there are no consequences 1:24:18 Manrai: why responsibility is a good thing 1:25:20 Closing remarks KEY QUOTES 17:40 "We have enough gotchas in our life." – Thorp 33:27 "No system and no individual is infallible." – Skipper 47:57 "The next day I send kids home with a bag of weed and tell them not to smoke it." – Thorp 50:03 "We need to make sure that what we are doing does not train us out of jobs as scientists." – Pham 54:30 "So what that we have an answer? We don't really understand the journey that led us to it." – Skipper 55:12 "Research, just like art, is a human endeavor." – Skipper 1:21:20 "It is absolutely essential to think about credit as one side of the coin, where accountability is the other." – Skipper REFERENCES [1] 13:57 Nature News & Views (Manrai): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02125-z [2] 21:17 Nature manuscript checklist: https://www.nature.com/documents/nature_3d_ms_checklist.pdf [3] 26:00 James Zou paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-11044-y [4] 29:30 Proofig: https://www.proofig.com/ | iThenticate: https://www.ithenticate.com/ [5] 36:12 NEJM AI Fast Track (human+AI review): https://ai.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/AIe2501175 [6] 40:04 Liang, Zou et al., LLM feedback on research papers: https://ai.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/AIoa2400196 [7] 47:40 Nature on AI text in research papers: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02551-z [8] 1:02:10 NEJM AI Datasets, Benchmarks & Protocols: https://ai.nejm.org/browse/ai-article-type/datasets-benchmarks-protocols WATCH NEXT Our previous talk with James Zou: https://youtu.be/SjJtoZFO7Ng Holden Thorp with James Evans: https://youtu.be/vjmsrDBQyYc More: https://www.broadinstitute.org © Broad Institute, 2026. All rights reserved. #PeerReview #AI #AIinScience #ScientificPublishing #LLMs #Claude #ChatGPT

With SocialCounts.org’s view counter, track your YouTube video’s live view count and YouTube likes count in real time with fast, reliable updates.

Watch every YouTube video live view count rise with our real-time YouTube views tracker—built for accuracy and minimal delay.

Follow YouTube real time views as they happen, using our dedicated view counter for YouTube videos.

Get up-to-date live view count on YouTube and see real-time growth with SocialCounts.org’s smart tracking tools.