ttaching to scientific literature the the label of “peer reviewed” is a common practice among usual suspects to lend legitimacy to their pseudoscience and storytelling.
A prime example is literature related to transgenderism created by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health. Once a false body of work is spewed forth, perps and their lugenpresse cronies go to their favorite canard and call skeptics “deniers.” They are also supported by liberal grants from other sketchy characters. Winter Watch discussed this topic here.
Quentin Van Meter, M.D., FCP, is a pediatric endocrinologist who explains the method as applied to transgenderism. Van Meter was harassed and prevented from speaking at the University of Western Australia by a brood of pervert justice warriors (PJW).
Unfortunately, the “peer review” fraud has corrupted a whole body of so-called scientific literature. The journal Tumor Biology retracted 107 research papers after discovering that the authors faked the peer-review process. This isn’t the journal’s first rodeo. In late 2017, 58 papers were retracted from seven different journals — and 25 came from Tumor Biology for the same reason.
The publisher Springer in August 2015 retracted 64 articles from 10 different subscription journals “after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and subsequent internal investigations uncovered fabricated peer-review reports,” according to a statement on its website. The retractions came only months after BioMed Central, an open-access publisher also owned by Springer, retracted 43 articles for the same reason. This prompted the New England Journal of Medicine to weigh in on what it called the “hacking” of the scientific publishing process.
In 2005, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) created a software program called SCIgen that randomly combined strings of words to generate fake computer science papers. The objective of the exercise was to prove that the peer-review process was fundamentally flawed and the conferences and journals would accept meaningless papers. Scigen caught numerous culprits with their pants down.
In November 2014, Nature, the international weekly journal of science, published an article about “peer-review rings” in which peer-reviewers colluded to review each other’s work — and provide glowing reviews, of course.
Peer-review fraud is perfectly suited for ideological agendas. Authors are often asked to suggest potential reviewers for their own papers. This is done because research subjects are often an in-group niche, and a researcher working in a sub-sub-field may be more aware than the journal editor of who is best placed to assess the work.
But some journals go further and request, or allow, authors to submit the contact details of these potential reviewers. If the editor isn’t aware of the potential for a scam, they then merrily send the requests for review out to fake email addresses, often using the names of actual researchers. At the other end of the fake email address is someone who’s in on the game and happy to send in a friendly review. The editor may even be in on the game as well.
A website called Retraction Watch tracks the peer-review process and fraudulent science. It has discovered that individuals who have high retraction numbers are often unaffected in their career path. In other words, cheating pays. This hints at wink-wink dishonesty and gaming in the science professions generally. Researchers who commit scientific fraud are protected by privacy laws.
Even when a work is retracted, it frequently continues to be heavily cited by others. Notice the first article on Visfatin. It was retracted in 2007 after having been cited 276 times. However, after retraction, it was cited 942 more times.
In fields like psychology, low-effort frauds are much more difficult to detect when the results are statistical. One of the most monumental scientific frauds of all times was perped by Albert Kinsey in his sex “studies.” See “Albert Kinsey: The Lying Godfather of Fraudulent Sexual Research.” All of this agenda-driven “data” is locked up to this day and not subject to any scrutiny.