Re: Fake peer reviews using the names of real scientists.

  RonO wrote:

https://www.science.org/content/article/it-felt-very-icky-scientist-s- name-was-used-write-fake-peer-reviews
 Getting your buddies to review your paper is bad enough, but some "scientists" are faking peer reviews and signing other peoples names to them.  This seems to be a new low, and means that those involved are not interested in producing any valid science.

"Peer Review" has been refuted time and time again. You've got to STOP
pretending that it's anything other than a filter to keep out the
uncredentialed, the unpopular and those who offend the political powers.
That's all it's fall.
The true sadness is Peer Review is that we only ever see the shit that
passes through it. We rarely if ever see the proper science that gets
rejected.
One example I can think of was a letter on the topic of the Oral Vaccine
Theory on the origins of AIDS. It was from a properly credentialed
scientist who was an expert in his field and performed research, but it
rubbed the powers-that-be the wrong way.
It also bucked the official narrative at that time, which was that the
theory was all the brain child of a writer, a journalist and not any
scientists...
I'm not saying abandon Peer Review. What I'm saying is that everyone
needs to grab a clue:  The science, THE DEBATE begins with publication.
Morons have it backwards and think that the publication ends debate.
"It was published in a Peer Reviewed journal. You can't question it!"
No, YOU CAN AND YOU SHOULD question it!
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5