Can We Really Trust the Experts?
The Pros and Cons of the Peer Review Process and the Effect this has on Health Paradigm Formation
Peer review is a process in which scholars in a particular field- say healthcare- evaluate the work of their peers for quality and suitability for inclusion in academic journals and other relevant publications. While the peer review process is intended to ensure the integrity and accuracy of published research, there are several dangers associated with it that I want to discuss, as they are relevant to the current and future healthcare paradigms we find ourselves discussing.
First and foremost is the propensity for fraud and misconduct. In as recently as the last couple of months, there have been SEVERAL HUNDRED cases of research retractions due to fraudulent or unethical behavior. The reasons range anywhere from the authors fabricating their data to some even creating organized rings in attempt to push papers through. Richard Bennett, former vice president of research and publishing services for Hindawi, told the Retraction Watch blog that an internal investigation uncovered “coordinated peer review rings,” which featured reviewers and editors coordinating to get papers through peer review. This investigation is ongoing and has led to over 500 retractions across 16 journals, with more retractions expected to come as the fraud is uncovered… and this is just one recent example! There have been, again, HUNDREDS of additional recent retractions, all citing fraud and other fuckery. (I added a few links in the sources).
This is alarming! The maintenance of dogmas and the suppression of dissenting viewpoints seems to be more important than demonstrating proper research, due diligence, and having a penchant for integrity. Even if they aren’t all corrupt or members of a ring of fraudsters, there are still researchers who may be hesitant to challenge established beliefs or theories in their field, leading to a lack of critical examination of certain ideas. This can stifle the advancement of knowledge and hinder the development of new and innovative ideas. It can also cause ingenuous or unproven science (which is now mostly dogmatic, unfortunately) to be perceived as the fucking gospel, and that is how we end up with modern-day versions of frauds like Pasteur. Even Einstein scorned the peer review process and seen that it did not hold water.
While the first journal can be traced back to 1665, the history of peer review as we know it was launched the 1970s, when it began to be widely adopted by academic journals as a means of ensuring the quality and reliability of published research. Prior to this, the evaluation of research was often left to the discretion of individual journal editors, who may have had their own biases or agendas. The adoption of peer review was seen as a way to increase the objectivity and impartiality of the publication process. When you take that statement at face-value, it sounds like a good and noble reason. When you know how deep corruption tends to run, you see that this can also be used for ensuring that only the proper information is approved, keeping control of the Overton Window regarding published discussion, and is instead used to either stifle, hijack or co-opt the work of another.
It is also interesting to me that the timeline behind this push for peer review also conveniently lines up with several events of note: the beginning of Tony Fauci’s tenure as the head of the NIAID’s clinical physiology section in 1974, a time during which he began his experimentation of patients with immunodeficiency, and the development and release of several Merck vaccines that would be included in the WHO’s 1974 Expanded Programme on Immunization. I could be reaching, and we can’t run that through the Scientific Method, so that is a discussion for another time…
While peer review has been put forth to be a valuable tool for improving the quality of published research, it is important to recognize its limitations and be aware of the dangers it poses. Ensuring the integrity of the peer review process and being vigilant against fraudulent or unethical behavior is essential for maintaining the trust and credibility of the scientific community. With that being said, I decided to investigate further and sent a Freedom of Information request to Hindawi/ Wiley to see if they are as committed to transparency and integrity as they say they are. I want to know the list of those implicated in this fraud ring of peer review fuckery. I cannot understand why it is only pertinent to reveal this information to third parties and related industry groups. So, we shall see what they have to say, and I will follow up soon if and when I get an answer. For now, I want to acknowledge the capacity for fraud that comes with the peer review process and bring attention to the importance of breaking free from the limiting chains that bind how we discuss and process new information.
UPDATE: I was sent an auto-email informing me that the office was closed for holiday until January 4, 2023. I also had to update and make some revisions to the request for information since this is not a public entity and not bound legally by FOI laws. This is now going to be about whether or not they want to be as transparent with the public as they portrayed. Will update again at a later date.
UPDATE #2: After subsequent emails to Liz Ferguson attempting to give an opportunity for comment, my messages have been entirely ignored. So much for transparency and their claims to be open about this and give the public a further update!!!
SOURCES:
https://www.nature.com/articles/515480a
https://theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-too-27405
https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/peer-review-a-historical-perspective/