They will be even more shocked when they examine the “peer reviewed” articles of the climate change “scientists”
lol
I note that the journal Climate Dynamics and several Climate Change books are part of the Springer Americas stable.
it’s all about grant money.........
This is just one aspect of the corruption or weaknesses that exist in the research and peer-reviewed journal publication system. There are several problems that are largely ignored. There is fudging and falsification of the actual research. There is “piggybacking” of adding authors who did not contribute to the scholarship to the articles. There is exploitation of research worker bees by senior scientists. There is manipulation, intentional bias, and obnoxious elitism and gatekeeping (common, and it suppresses advancements) in the peer review system. There is even flat-out falsification of publication records by some researchers. I was informed of an “scholar” who simply copied an entire paper published in a highly reputable journal and published it under his or her name in another journal. Then there are a lot of journals that have uncertain peer-reviewer quality—some reviewers can barely read the papers but barf up a review and other reviewers provide ridiculous reviews that actually make the article worse. The process is quite weak.
Those who worship at the altar of the false god “Science” probably won’t have their faith shaken. And they won’t care as long as those grants keep flowing.
The flow of new drug approvals must continue nonstop without any barriers to profits.
This is simply fraud. Medical “research” has become a joke. Studies are cooked to make drugs with no measurable benefit over placebo (or worse) look effective. This started a long time ago but the corruption has bloomed in recent years. SSRIs were earlier examples of drugs without any better record than placebos having the data reworked after being rejected by the FDA and subsequently “discovered” to be efficacious after the exact same data is reevaluated. Drug companies were emboldened and by offering retirement jobs to FDA regulators they have entirely corrupted the process. The next step is that new drugs will be approved without even doing any clinical trials. The revolving door between the FDA and Pharma is as bad as the DoD/Defense Contractors’.
I only looked at the first page of retractions, but the scientists seem to be all Chinese, but am no expert on Chinese names.
“And if the system was so easy to fool that people were allowed to offer their own peer reviewers”
It’s not allowed, it’s mandatory.
When one submits a paper, you have to supply names of potential reviewers.
I always have hated that.
It seems to me the editors should know who would make good reviewers.
The authors shouldn’t be solicited for reviewers.