Peer review is not the big deal some make it out to be. I am sure that many think it is like teacher marking a science homework assignment. However, in the case of research, teacher does not know all the answers.
Scientists up to and including Einstein were not peer reviewed. How was their science? Did Newton come up with some good stuff? How about Einstein? Story is that one journal wanted to review Einstein and he said thanks but no thanks and sent his paper elsewhere!
The climate cabal use peer review as one more way to limit what papers are published and when. Delaying a paper that might have made an upcoming IPCC report can skew the science message that is presented.
On one occasion, some scientists published some controversial (i.e. non-narrative) research and the journal editor was approached to delay the paper. The peer review took for ever. All the time the climate cabal were desperately trying to dream up a counter paper and after some months they did. Obviously they approved their paper immediately.
The two papers were then published in consecutive editions of the journal making it look as if the original paper could be instantly dismissed. And, because the second paper was "independent" and not a reply to the first paper the original researchers had no right to reply and have the last word.
If you think that peer review prevents papers from being retracted you should visit Retraction Watch. Have a list of some retracted COVID-19 papers.
Peer review is not the big deal some make it out to be. I am sure that many think it is like teacher marking a science homework assignment. However, in the case of research, teacher does not know all the answers.
Scientists up to and including Einstein were not peer reviewed. How was their science? Did Newton come up with some good stuff? How about Einstein? Story is that one journal wanted to review Einstein and he said thanks but no thanks and sent his paper elsewhere!
The climate cabal use peer review as one more way to limit what papers are published and when. Delaying a paper that might have made the upcoming IPCC report can skew the science that is presented.
On one occasion, some scientists published some contraversial (i.e. non-narrative) research and the journal editor was approached to delay the paper. The peer review took for ever. All the time the climate cabal were trying to dream up a counter paper and after some months they did. Obviously they approved teir paper immediately.
The two papers were then published in consecutive editions of the journal making it look as if the original paper could be instantly dismissed. And, because the second paper was "independent" and not a reply to the first paper the original researchers had no right to reply and have the last word.
If you think that peer review prebents papers from being retracted you should visit Retraction Watch. Have a list of some retracted COVID-19 papers.