Niels Bohr :-
“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”
Peer review is very badly flawed. Peer review is only as good as the peers it uses as referees. If nearly everyone who reviews for an entity is in the thrall of the same mistake then they will not find it in papers they review, and the entity, and its papers, will propagate it.
“Peer review is an inherently conservative process, that encourages the emergence of self-serving cliques of reviewers, who are more likely to review each others’ grant proposals and publications favourably than those submitted by researchers from outside the group.”
“The problem with peer review is that we have good evidence on its deficiencies and poor evidence on its benefits. We know that it is expensive, slow, prone to bias, open to abuse, possibly anti-innovatory, and unable to detect fraud. We also know that the published papers that emerge from the process are often grossly deficient.”
“In the June 12, 1996 Wall Street Journal, Dr. Fred Seitz stated, “In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report”. Yet in the eyes of the media, Hollywood, and the alarmists, the IPCC gets an unexamined free pass.”Peer review must die like the old boys network that it is. It is a closed loop.