The corruption of the peer-reviewed process and the scientific & medical journals

twitter.com...

Reply from the British Medical Journal to Professor Norman Fenton

Thank you for sending us your paper. We read it with interest but I am sorry to say that we do not think it is the right for the BMJ. In comparison with the many other papers we have to consider, this one is of a lower priority for us.We do not send out for external peer-review manuscripts whose subject matter, design or topic do not meet our current priorities and are unlikely to make it through our process.

The distinguished academic Professor Fenton has been unable to publish in the last few years (after the start of the Covid pandemic) in any of the peer-reviewed journals or even pre-print journals when at the same time other academic are threatened by the mob or even by their management of their schools and departments with cancellation and dismissal because they state biological facts. Science and academia are under tremendous pressures and threats.



These are the admissions made:

1) The paper submitted is not right as it doesn't fit the narrative
2) The paper is of a lower priority as it doesn't fit the narrative
3) No need for external peer-review as the current priorities of the journal are not met
4) No papers can make it through their process if they don't fit the narrative


It doesn't matter if the publication is of high quality. Science and truth don't matter at all-what matters is the current narrative and how these journals can further this narrative at all costs. There is not a single comment about the quality and merits of this paper by Professor Fenton.

During the peer reviewing process, even good research is altered to make it acceptable to the medical concensus of the time. This will often alter the wording and exclude some of the things in the research including not listing properly the parameters of the research. Peer reviewing an article can change the relativity of the research...based on the beliefs held by the peer reviewers.

They will also deny peer reviewing things that they do not think fits their beliefs of the majority of their field whether right or wrong does not matter.

This peer reviewing problem exists in other fields of science too, consensus of the time...not reality governs what is considered reality.

Response to Professor Fenton from medRxiV (Pre-print server for Health Sciences)

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to medRxiv. We regret to inform you that your manuscript is inappropriate for posting. medRxiv is intended for research papers, and our screening process determined that this manuscript fell short of that description

The word 'inappropriate' is really a red flag.

What is then 'appropriate'?? Papers stating vaccines and lockdowns are safe n effective and have saved so many lives? Or maybe papers arguing sex is a spectrum and biology is irrelevant. What about opioids and how good they are for the health of a person...

a reply to: linda72

Exactly this, miss Linda. Abhorrent, reprobate, evil. Lord have mercy.
#NarwhalTuskJoust

Big pharma has captured medical journals. If your funding source tells you they're gonna cut funding if you accept someone's paper, what are you gonna do?


This is exactly how science has been hijacked to allow big pharma to profit from the covid "vaccines."

astronomynow.com...

Appeared on the Royal Astronomical Society's website. The outrage got it removed.
Science whoredom.

That’s cool man.

:up;

a reply to: Gentzen

a reply to: linda72

In support of your OP...

Peer Review as Shadow Cancelling

I've been keeping an eye on this for some time. I have a few more recent links if you'd like to see them. The rabbit hole is deep on this topic.

originally posted by: Gentzen
astronomynow.com...

Appeared on the Royal Astronomical Society's website. The outrage got it removed.
Science whoredom.

Thankyou that was an interesting read.

All the best

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: linda72

In support of your OP...

Peer Review as Shadow Cancelling

I've been keeping an eye on this for some time. I have a few more recent links if you'd like to see them. The rabbit hole is deep on this topic.

Please do share it with us.

I know about the peer-reviewed process for a long time. Just consider what happened in the last three years and you get a good flavor of what's going on.

originally posted by: Gentzen
astronomynow.com...

Appeared on the Royal Astronomical Society's website. The outrage got it removed.
Science whoredom.

Global cooling?!

There is only global warming and anything else is just false right wing conspiracy theories.

a reply to: linda72

Read theBMJ's publication HIGH rejection rate. It has nothing to do with inappropriateness or not following the narrative. It has to do with volume.

Get a grip people.

www.bmj.com...

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

Read theBMJ's publication HIGH rejection rate. It has nothing to do with inappropriateness or not following the narrative. It has to do with volume.

Get a grip people.

www.bmj.com...

I reject this outright

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

Read theBMJ's publication HIGH rejection rate. It has nothing to do with inappropriateness or not following the narrative. It has to do with volume.

Get a grip people.

www.bmj.com...

You may want to look at what was linked earlier in this thread

Thank you for sending us your paper. We read it with interest but I am sorry to say that we do not think it is the right for the BMJ. In comparison with the many other papers we have to consider, this one is of a lower priority for us.We do not send out for external peer-review manuscripts whose subject matter, design or topic do not meet our current priorities and are unlikely to make it through our process.

Do you realize what it was rejected?! It says clearly the paper doesn't follow the narrative.

Get a grip people

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

Read theBMJ's publication HIGH rejection rate. It has nothing to do with inappropriateness or not following the narrative. It has to do with volume.

Get a grip people.

www.bmj.com...

You may want to look at what was linked earlier in this thread

Thank you for sending us your paper. We read it with interest but I am sorry to say that we do not think it is the right for the BMJ. In comparison with the many other papers we have to consider, this one is of a lower priority for us.We do not send out for external peer-review manuscripts whose subject matter, design or topic do not meet our current priorities and are unlikely to make it through our process.

Do you realize what it was rejected?! It says clearly the paper doesn't follow the narrative.

Get a grip people

What does having a 'lower priority for us' mean to you?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

Read theBMJ's publication HIGH rejection rate. It has nothing to do with inappropriateness or not following the narrative. It has to do with volume.

Get a grip people.

www.bmj.com...

You may want to look at what was linked earlier in this thread

Thank you for sending us your paper. We read it with interest but I am sorry to say that we do not think it is the right for the BMJ. In comparison with the many other papers we have to consider, this one is of a lower priority for us.We do not send out for external peer-review manuscripts whose subject matter, design or topic do not meet our current priorities and are unlikely to make it through our process.

Do you realize what it was rejected?! It says clearly the paper doesn't follow the narrative.

Get a grip people

What does having a 'lower priority for us' mean to you?

That's a good question for you to answer. It doesn't say anything about the 'volume' of papers received.

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

Read theBMJ's publication HIGH rejection rate. It has nothing to do with inappropriateness or not following the narrative. It has to do with volume.

Get a grip people.

www.bmj.com...

You may want to look at what was linked earlier in this thread

Thank you for sending us your paper. We read it with interest but I am sorry to say that we do not think it is the right for the BMJ. In comparison with the many other papers we have to consider, this one is of a lower priority for us.We do not send out for external peer-review manuscripts whose subject matter, design or topic do not meet our current priorities and are unlikely to make it through our process.

Do you realize what it was rejected?! It says clearly the paper doesn't follow the narrative.

Get a grip people

What does having a 'lower priority for us' mean to you?

That's a good question for you to answer. It doesn't say anything about the 'volume' of papers received.

Yes, they do.

Why does The BMJ reject so many papers?

We receive many more research articles than we can publish, rejecting around 96% of the research we receive.

Our decisions are based mainly on the suitability of the specific research question and the study design: indeed, we will often publish an article reporting a study with “negative” results if its research question was sufficiently important and well answered. By the same token we may reject an article where the overall subject is relevant, topical, and important but the study didn’t ask a research question that added enough.

If you are confident your research paper will meet these criteria, please go ahead and submit to The BMJ as your first choice. If not, please consider making one of our wider family of journals your first choice.

www.bmj.com...

Your Dr. Nolan seems to be butt hurt.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

Read theBMJ's publication HIGH rejection rate. It has nothing to do with inappropriateness or not following the narrative. It has to do with volume.

Get a grip people.

www.bmj.com...

You may want to look at what was linked earlier in this thread

Thank you for sending us your paper. We read it with interest but I am sorry to say that we do not think it is the right for the BMJ. In comparison with the many other papers we have to consider, this one is of a lower priority for us.We do not send out for external peer-review manuscripts whose subject matter, design or topic do not meet our current priorities and are unlikely to make it through our process.

Do you realize what it was rejected?! It says clearly the paper doesn't follow the narrative.

Get a grip people

What does having a 'lower priority for us' mean to you?

That's a good question for you to answer. It doesn't say anything about the 'volume' of papers received.

Yes, they do.

Why does The BMJ reject so many papers?

We receive many more research articles than we can publish, rejecting around 96% of the research we receive.

Our decisions are based mainly on the suitability of the specific research question and the study design: indeed, we will often publish an article reporting a study with “negative” results if its research question was sufficiently important and well answered. By the same token we may reject an article where the overall subject is relevant, topical, and important but the study didn’t ask a research question that added enough.

If you are confident your research paper will meet these criteria, please go ahead and submit to The BMJ as your first choice. If not, please consider making one of our wider family of journals your first choice.

www.bmj.com...

Your Dr. Nolan seems to be butt hurt.

What the BMJ answered in response to Professor Fenton submission of research paper has nothing to do with what you said about 'volume'.

BTW you got his name wrong

It's just not 'right' for them

originally posted by: linda72
It's just not 'right' for them

Dr. Nolan has the freedom to submit his paper anywhere else, has he done this? No? Butt hurt or he knows his paper will not meet the requirements of any other publisher.