They gave it away too quickly. Whenever they use the expression “peer reviewed” anymore, it is a major red flag that it is a totally bogus fabrication.
“Peer review” died an ignoble death in MMGW when it turned out that the “peer reviews” being used in many reports were “incestuous”.
This means if say, there are six insiders, three of them will write a paper, with one of the three as the “lead researcher”. Then the other three do the “peer review” and give it an ‘A++’ grade. Then they rotate.
One of the “peer reviewers” from the last paper becomes the “lead researcher” in the next paper, etc.
These “mutual admiration societies” can crank out huge numbers of bogus papers that all agree with and support each other. And by publishing so much, it appears that they are “top researchers” in their field.
It took a long time for this Lysenkoism to be unmasked, but now that it has, their technique has been compromised, though they are even too dumb to stop using it.
““Peer review” died an ignoble death in MMGW when it turned out that the “peer reviews” being used in many reports were “incestuous”.
This means if say, there are six insiders, three of them will write a paper, with one of the three as the “lead researcher”. Then the other three do the “peer review” and give it an ‘A++’ grade. Then they rotate.
One of the “peer reviewers” from the last paper becomes the “lead researcher” in the next paper, etc.
These “mutual admiration societies” can crank out huge numbers of bogus papers that all agree with and support each other. And by publishing so much, it appears that they are “top researchers” in their field.”
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
Excellent description! Especially the second paragraph above. Thank you. I will use this example next time I need to rebut these ‘experts’.