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

On 12/4/2024 9:11 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 12/4/24 5:21 PM, RonO wrote:
 

You just do not know what you are talking about.

 I do. You're an idiot.
 "Peer review" is rubbish. This has been revealed countless
times. I've even shared stories on publishers using A.I.
for "Peer Review."
 There's been media on people producing gibberish and getting
it printed in "Peer Reviewed Journals."
 It's a farce. Stupid people use "Peer Review" as an excuse
to not think.
 

 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.

 For nearly all the time you have no clue. You don't. Not even
in hindsight.

What a loser nut job.  You contended that peer review was a means to exclude the uncredentialed, and you seem to be clueless about your own claims.  Just reread what you have snipped out and what you had written to get that response.
Ron Okimoto

 

The work has to speak for itself.

 And yet we know for a fact that this isn't true.
 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01436-7
 Look. Pull your fingers out of your mouth, or your nose or whatever
orifice you stuck them in, and look. Or check the Google archive.
There's nothing new here, absolutely nothing.