Peer review, smear review

Some people believe that “peer review” supposedly “does the same thing for science that the ‘inspected by #7’ sticker does for your t-shirt – provides assurance that someone who knows what they’re doing has double-checked it.” I say supposedly, because though in theory that may be true, in practice “not so much.” Or – perhaps – you still get peer-reviewed junk just like you get junk t-shirts even when they have been “inspected by #7”! Here is a fine example of that:

Academics Expose ‘Grievance Studies’ Field by Submitting Hoax Papers to Journals -- “In one particularly telling example, the academics submitted a paper to the feminist geography journal Gender, Place & Culture detailing the canine rape culture supposedly prevalent within dog parks.” 

The essay was made up out of whole cloth, and the peer-reviewed journal hastened it into print. The linked article details other such cases. Seven of twenty outlandishly outlandish articles were accepted and printed in so-called peer-reviewed journals. See also:

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals -- “A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that ‘the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts’.”

Is the Peer Review Process for Scientific Papers Broken? -- “...many of the most influential texts in the history of science were never put through the peer review process, including Isaac Newton’s 1687 Principia Mathematica, Albert Einstein’s 1905 paper on relativity, and James Watson and Francis Crick’s 1953 Nature paper on the structure of DNA.” 

In 1936, Albert Einstein—who was used to people like Planck making decisions about his papers without outside opinions—was incensed when the American journal Physical Review sent his submission to another physicist for evaluation. In a terse note to the editor, Einstein wrote:

“I see no reason to address the—in any case erroneous—comments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere.”

Probably most people perceive peer review as a reliable process, based on objective and unbiased facts. When peer-reviewed journals receive and print preposterous pieces (like those mentioned above), it becomes obvious that could not be further from the truth. Additionally, I think our recent journey into the Covid-19 era really highlighted the manuevering and bullying used to quell opposing opinions. Whether scientific, religious, cultural, or other peer-reviewed journals, most all have bought stock in a flawed process.

As someone has pointed out, the purveyors of a system supposedly rooted in science instead have a belief in peer review that is not scientific (i.e., not based on evidence). “How odd that science should be rooted in belief.” All is not well with the peer review process! Be aware and beware.