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.
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.