Gaffer wrote: “Look them up in the context of “peer review.””
Seems like all three tried to subvert peer reviews.
Why?
Not just subvert reviews. They were in control of the periodicals/associations to the extent that it made their collusions so execrable. They were bullies.
Bullies just like many of the ‘experts’ who want to pooh pooh concerns over the vax or delay data release for data that likely had been released a priori (what trial have you ever seen that didn’t make you sign privacy act releases and the like?)