Obviously, a panel should not contain anyone who agrees in advance to give the paper favorable attention and help it get published. Yet a variety of journals have allowed or overlooked such practices.
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, the results of two-thirds of 67 key studies analyzed by Bayer researchers from 2008-2010 couldn’t be reproduced.
The peer review is funded by the same pharmaceutical giants who fund the drug research.
TUCHIDIOT, you who googles POLITICO to know what medical experiment you should participate in. Only you.
Everyone else here makes fun of POLITICO.
https://omegacanada.win/p/16Zqmvz1XB/far-leftist-rag-politico--meet-t/
Only Fat boomers follow Politico for medical advice.
And yet she's the one posting Politico pages: https://omegacanada.win/p/16Zqmvz1XB/far-leftist-rag-politico--meet-t/
It's a mystery to me folks.
Do you think she's one of those "Fat boomer"s?
Maybe she's trying to tell us something.
The fat Boomer failed at the Google Politico fact checking.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility/
https://drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2020/04/13/corruption-of-nih-peer-review/
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-top-journal-editors-get-paid-by-big-pharma-corrupt
https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-often-hidden-problems-with-peer-review-research/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
Folks, apparently V&C1 is arguing that this means any published paper should be taken at face value.
Or something.