What Would We Do Without Peer Review?

WaPo;

A major publisher of scholarly medical and science articles has retracted 43 papers because of “fabricated” peer reviews amid signs of a broader fake peer review racket affecting many more publications.
[…]
Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, the co-editors of Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks research integrity and first reported the BioMed Central retractions, have counted a total of 170 retractions in the past few years across several journals because of fake peer reviews.

h/t Wretchard

7 Replies to “What Would We Do Without Peer Review?”

Could this be a coordinated effort to
A) prepare the groundwork for the Big Kahuna (media “revelations” that the Klimageddon Klown Krowd’s “science” is, [gasp!], umm, not quite right;
or
B) demonstrate the faults and failures in other fields of science. Don’t look over there at those World-Savers playing with their videogames and demanding ever more sweet, sweet government grant money.

“First you need honest people”
Dad.

First off…..much “PEER revue” is actually PAL revue.

Just like this totaly fabricated Climate Change

In other words, “Peer Reviewed” means “not read yet”.

I can tell you right now that almost every single “study” on gun control done since 1968 should be retracted.
That seems a little crazy now that I look at it in print. Hmmm.
Would it help to say that based on having read them all, an HONEST peer review would have tanked them? Actually, a bored high school science teacher would have given most of them a D. An honest peer reviewer would have walked over to the author’s house and slapped them.