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

On 12/4/2024 12:16 PM, JTEM wrote:

  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.

You just do not know what you are talking about.  Most of the time the reviewer isn't given the names of the authors of the paper, so it isn't up to them to determine if the person qualifies as a scientist or not. The work has to speak for itself.  In Poultry genetics there is the example where a person that was not a biologist started publishing genetic results that he was generating in his backyard.  Look up W. Clive Carefoot.  He published from the 1980's into this century.
He ended up publishing a lot of work that funding agencies were not funding because they were not "important" enough or did not have application interests.  Fellow backyard breeders appreciated his work a lot because no one else was doing the type of research that would help them out.
If your work is sound and conclusions reasonable from that work it can get published even if the research is considered not to be relevant to the funding agencies.  You just have to add something to the science. Sturtevant got published in Science (the Journal) for work that he did in his backyard before he became an undergraduate student at Columbia and started working in Morgan's lab.  Sturtevant went on to develop linkage mapping.  It was something that should have gotten him the Nobel prize.  Nearly all the causative polymorphism were discovered using linkage mapping.  The first breast cancer genes were identified that way.  It is a major means to identify genes associated with muscular dystrophy and any other genetic disease that have had causative variants identified.
Ron Okimoto

 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!