I"ve read from several reliable sources that 98 to 99% of peer reviewed articles are corrupt. This comes from several reliable sources, wish I could remember exactly where but it was from reputable researchers. Those who peer review can be bribed/threatened. Before peer reviewing, scientists could write up their experiences and the court…
I"ve read from several reliable sources that 98 to 99% of peer reviewed articles are corrupt. This comes from several reliable sources, wish I could remember exactly where but it was from reputable researchers. Those who peer review can be bribed/threatened. Before peer reviewing, scientists could write up their experiences and the court of public opinion could hold sway. With peer review, the public is basically told what to think. Most scientists are pretty honest in my experience with huge respect for the field of science and take their work very seriously. You'd have alot more honesty in research papers IMO if the scientists were left alone to just write their own papers without corrup peer reviewers.
You make an excellent point and I’m intrigued by the idea of what an alternative paper publishing method could be. I like your idea of clarity on the peer review process, since this is so misunderstood by so many people.
I wonder if a searchable platform like Substack would work for publishing nonfiction works as separate from opinion or fiction. The ability to sort based on topic or follow an individual or group would be great as would allowing comments to be easily available for criticism of the work. The authors could have the option of responding to the comments or amending the work with changes being tracked like a standard word document. Not sure how it could be made to discourage junk science or corruption though.
1,000 LIKES for you, Soraya! What a great idea, have non-fiction section on Substack - it could be just for scientists who have submitted articles for people to read and learn about their work. They could also charge, just like writers on Substack now do, $5 a month or so and independent scientists could fund their work that way. If I found a scientist whose work I admired, for example, I could support him with any amount of $ per month and be able to read all his articles, thereby getting to know alot more about him and his work. Scientists would have sponsors so to speak. One of the things my scientist husband has pointed out is that there are no more independent scientists, they are dependent on universities (who are almost all woke libs with no real science) or govt agencies, who are mostl if not all, corrupt. This way, any independent scientist pursuing free energy for example, could do their own research from their garage and still have money to live on and continue their research. I do believe you've hit on an EXCELLENT idea, thank you, Soraya!!!!
Those papers written by the "CDC Response Team" are very influential and important. I think they write them just to control some narrative. Nobody picks them apart. We have a few people trying to be watchdogs or genuine skeptics, but they are ignored. They've covered all their bases to conceal the truth or disseminate the message they want to spread.
EXACTLY! And many of those who peer review aren't scientists, nor do they know any science. In fact, I've heard more than one scientist/doctor say "Fauci doesn't know any science." And he's the one who is pretty much driving the whole bus - off the cliff I might add. There is some group that is controlling the narrative in the field of science IMO. Also, there have been more than 200 scientists in the field of biology/medicine that have been murdered. This was the figure in about 2008 or 2010 from a journalist who was covering the suspicious deaths of these scientists. She stopped writing about it in about 2010 when her life was threatened. She's the wife of a well-known doctor who does alot of research.
I"ve read from several reliable sources that 98 to 99% of peer reviewed articles are corrupt. This comes from several reliable sources, wish I could remember exactly where but it was from reputable researchers. Those who peer review can be bribed/threatened. Before peer reviewing, scientists could write up their experiences and the court of public opinion could hold sway. With peer review, the public is basically told what to think. Most scientists are pretty honest in my experience with huge respect for the field of science and take their work very seriously. You'd have alot more honesty in research papers IMO if the scientists were left alone to just write their own papers without corrup peer reviewers.
You make an excellent point and I’m intrigued by the idea of what an alternative paper publishing method could be. I like your idea of clarity on the peer review process, since this is so misunderstood by so many people.
I wonder if a searchable platform like Substack would work for publishing nonfiction works as separate from opinion or fiction. The ability to sort based on topic or follow an individual or group would be great as would allowing comments to be easily available for criticism of the work. The authors could have the option of responding to the comments or amending the work with changes being tracked like a standard word document. Not sure how it could be made to discourage junk science or corruption though.
1,000 LIKES for you, Soraya! What a great idea, have non-fiction section on Substack - it could be just for scientists who have submitted articles for people to read and learn about their work. They could also charge, just like writers on Substack now do, $5 a month or so and independent scientists could fund their work that way. If I found a scientist whose work I admired, for example, I could support him with any amount of $ per month and be able to read all his articles, thereby getting to know alot more about him and his work. Scientists would have sponsors so to speak. One of the things my scientist husband has pointed out is that there are no more independent scientists, they are dependent on universities (who are almost all woke libs with no real science) or govt agencies, who are mostl if not all, corrupt. This way, any independent scientist pursuing free energy for example, could do their own research from their garage and still have money to live on and continue their research. I do believe you've hit on an EXCELLENT idea, thank you, Soraya!!!!
Those papers written by the "CDC Response Team" are very influential and important. I think they write them just to control some narrative. Nobody picks them apart. We have a few people trying to be watchdogs or genuine skeptics, but they are ignored. They've covered all their bases to conceal the truth or disseminate the message they want to spread.
EXACTLY! And many of those who peer review aren't scientists, nor do they know any science. In fact, I've heard more than one scientist/doctor say "Fauci doesn't know any science." And he's the one who is pretty much driving the whole bus - off the cliff I might add. There is some group that is controlling the narrative in the field of science IMO. Also, there have been more than 200 scientists in the field of biology/medicine that have been murdered. This was the figure in about 2008 or 2010 from a journalist who was covering the suspicious deaths of these scientists. She stopped writing about it in about 2010 when her life was threatened. She's the wife of a well-known doctor who does alot of research.