A study claiming the 2014 Maidan massacre was a false-flag attack by the Ukrainian far-right was rejected from a journal after initially being accepted. According to both reviewers, the paper was "excellent".
Lancet Editor Richard Horton has said: "We know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, usually ignorant and frequently wrong." And that was before Covid came along.
Norwegian social scientists were asked to evaluate a piece of research. When the research had a left-wing conclusion, the social scientists rated it as significantly higher quality and more important.
How much can we trust peer review? A new study finds that only 23% of reviewers say "reject" when a paper has a Nobel Prize winner on it, but 65% say "reject" when the same paper is authored by an unknown researcher.
Editors of scientific journals are already being duped into publishing fake research papers written by AIs. But with the rapid improvement in AIs, the problem is about to get much worse. What are they doing about it?
Once more, a 'peer-reviewed' journal has to retract a bunch of papers because they are literally nonsense – generated by a computer algorithm. Why aren't publishers getting on top of this discreditable problem?
