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

originally posted by: quintessentone

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.

You are going off-topic by admitting your mistake earlier and his paper wasn't rejected due to the 'volume' of submissions.

And you still don't have his name right! I don't think you are reading my posts or have read the OP? It's Professor Norman Fenton.

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone

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.

You are going off-topic by admitting your mistake earlier and his paper wasn't rejected due to the 'volume' of submissions.

And you still don't have his name right! I don't think you are reading my posts or have read the OP? It's Professor Norman Fenton.

Oh yes, "what is in a name ...", but it is just another butt hurt person looking to blame something else rather than anything specific pertaining to themselves. His paper didn't meet their criteria, nor did 80% (volume) of others. Someone tell him to get over it and move on.

In the future, try to understand the message with the link I provide so you can get the whole message/picture instead of looking for a way out of the debate by ignoring the truth.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone

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.

You are going off-topic by admitting your mistake earlier and his paper wasn't rejected due to the 'volume' of submissions.

And you still don't have his name right! I don't think you are reading my posts or have read the OP? It's Professor Norman Fenton.

Oh yes, "what is in a name ...", but it is just another butt hurt person looking to blame something else rather than anything specific pertaining to themselves. His paper didn't meet their criteria, nor did 80% (volume) of others. Someone tell him to get over it and move on.

In the future, try to understand the message with the link I provide so you can get the whole message/picture instead of looking for a way out of the debate by ignoring the truth.

I think it is you who is ignoring the truth.

Professor Fenton's papers have been rejected since he spoke against the Covid narrative. It has nothing to do with the 'volume' of submissions. Anyone can verify this to you.

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone

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.

You are going off-topic by admitting your mistake earlier and his paper wasn't rejected due to the 'volume' of submissions.

And you still don't have his name right! I don't think you are reading my posts or have read the OP? It's Professor Norman Fenton.

Oh yes, "what is in a name ...", but it is just another butt hurt person looking to blame something else rather than anything specific pertaining to themselves. His paper didn't meet their criteria, nor did 80% (volume) of others. Someone tell him to get over it and move on.

In the future, try to understand the message with the link I provide so you can get the whole message/picture instead of looking for a way out of the debate by ignoring the truth.

I think it is you who is ignoring the truth.

Professor Fenton's papers have been rejected since he spoke against the Covid narrative. It has nothing to do with the 'volume' of submissions. Anyone can verify this to you.

If that is the case why isn't his paper being published by another publisher? Any other publisher?

It has to do with the volume of submissions that don't fit into that particular publisher's priorities/criteria.

Your thread title is disingenous, in that, it is only one professor submitting one paper to only one publisher, where his paper did not meet their criteria and/or their priorities at that time.

a reply to: quintessentone

Ask yourself this: why would any scientific journal have any priorities whatsoever in the first place? Since when is science supposed to be subjective?

originally posted by: malvy
a reply to: quintessentone

Ask yourself this: why would any scientific journal have any priorities whatsoever in the first place? Since when is science supposed to be subjective?

The BMJ said nothing about being subjective, go to their website and read what they expect in submissions from researchers. Again, OPs professor has freedom to submit his paper to publishers that are deemed unbiased.

I'll also add this tid bit about their ethics...

The BMJ is published by BMJ, a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association. The BMA grants editorial freedom to the editor of The BMJ (currently Dr. Kamran Abbasi). The views expressed in the journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the BMA. The BMJ follows guidelines on editorial independence produced by the World Association of Medical Editors and the code on good publication practice produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and checklists and advice for good research reporting of the EQUATOR network.

a reply to: linda72

Why no one trusts the scientific establishment — or the media

Treason of the Science Journals

Of course, one of my links has been scrubbed from the internet.

ETA: Faith, Fantasy, And The Protean Peer Review Process

a reply to: malvy

Exactly.

Peer review was exposed as being nothing more than a gatekeeping exercise way back in 2009 when the Climategate scandal broke. Here's a good summary about it from the Guardian. Yes, I know they're crap but the summary is correct. The conclusions that follow are garbage.

What is "climategate"?
It is the controversy over a set of over 1,000 private emails and many other documents that were stolen or leaked from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009. All the emails involved CRU staff, principally the CRU head Phil Jones, but in correspondence with many of the world's leading climate scientists, including the main researcher behind the "hockey stick" graph, Michael Mann. CRU's speciality was reconstructing records of the Earth's past temperatures from thermometer data and "proxy" such as tree-ring measurements.

Why did it cause such a storm?
Selected contents of the emails were used by some to suggest that scientists had been manipulating or hiding data, had been working together to frustrate people requesting access to the data and to prevent journal papers they disagreed with from appearing. Climate sceptics believed they had found the "smoking gun" which confirmed their belief that global warming was not happening. You can read five key emails here, with commentary from Fred Pearce. The impact of the emails was amplified because they were released just weeks before the major UN climate change summit in Copenhagen, at a time when the threat of climate change and the need for global action was at the forefront of public attention.

www.theguardian.com...

A better non MSM summary is found here. Surprisingly this was the first article in a Bing search I did on "climategate emails on peer review". If you do it yourself you'll see that they had to change the font and lettering just to get past the auto blocking. Salient point but I do recommend reading. It's only 17 pages long.

‘I can’t see either of these papers being in the
next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out
somehow—even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is!’
Phil
Jones
July 8,
200

IPA on Climategate

These guys set the standard. The same thing happened with Covid 19. It's a big club and you aint in it.

I mean, if they have any priorities regarding what topics they want to publish, then they are being subjective, don't you think?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: malvy
a reply to: quintessentone

Ask yourself this: why would any scientific journal have any priorities whatsoever in the first place? Since when is science supposed to be subjective?

The BMJ said nothing about being subjective, go to their website and read what they expect in submissions from researchers. Again, OPs professor has freedom to submit his paper to publishers that are deemed unbiased.

I'll also add this tid bit about their ethics...

The BMJ is published by BMJ, a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association. The BMA grants editorial freedom to the editor of The BMJ (currently Dr. Kamran Abbasi). The views expressed in the journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the BMA. The BMJ follows guidelines on editorial independence produced by the World Association of Medical Editors and the code on good publication practice produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and checklists and advice for good research reporting of the EQUATOR network.

I mean, if they have any priorities regarding what topics they want to publish, then they are being subjective, don't you think?

a reply to: linda72

To further prove your point-
Glaciers are misogynists, a Ted X talk

youtu.be...



Btw she received over 100k in funding for this nonsense

originally posted by: CR4SH0V3R1D3
a reply to: linda72

To further prove your point-
Glaciers are misogynists, a Ted X talk

youtu.be...



Btw she received over 100k in funding for this nonsense

Great point!

originally posted by: malvy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: malvy
a reply to: quintessentone

Ask yourself this: why would any scientific journal have any priorities whatsoever in the first place? Since when is science supposed to be subjective?

The BMJ said nothing about being subjective, go to their website and read what they expect in submissions from researchers. Again, OPs professor has freedom to submit his paper to publishers that are deemed unbiased.

I'll also add this tid bit about their ethics...

The BMJ is published by BMJ, a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association. The BMA grants editorial freedom to the editor of The BMJ (currently Dr. Kamran Abbasi). The views expressed in the journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the BMA. The BMJ follows guidelines on editorial independence produced by the World Association of Medical Editors and the code on good publication practice produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and checklists and advice for good research reporting of the EQUATOR network.

I mean, if they have any priorities regarding what topics they want to publish, then they are being subjective, don't you think?

Their priority is to push the official narratives n frankly I don't know what kind of journal will make such an admission.

originally posted by: TheAiIsLying
Peer review was exposed as being nothing more than a gatekeeping exercise way back in 2009 when the Climategate scandal broke. Here's a good summary about it from the Guardian. Yes, I know they're crap but the summary is correct. The conclusions that follow are garbage.

What is "climategate"?
It is the controversy over a set of over 1,000 private emails and many other documents that were stolen or leaked from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009. All the emails involved CRU staff, principally the CRU head Phil Jones, but in correspondence with many of the world's leading climate scientists, including the main researcher behind the "hockey stick" graph, Michael Mann. CRU's speciality was reconstructing records of the Earth's past temperatures from thermometer data and "proxy" such as tree-ring measurements.

Why did it cause such a storm?
Selected contents of the emails were used by some to suggest that scientists had been manipulating or hiding data, had been working together to frustrate people requesting access to the data and to prevent journal papers they disagreed with from appearing. Climate sceptics believed they had found the "smoking gun" which confirmed their belief that global warming was not happening. You can read five key emails here, with commentary from Fred Pearce. The impact of the emails was amplified because they were released just weeks before the major UN climate change summit in Copenhagen, at a time when the threat of climate change and the need for global action was at the forefront of public attention.

www.theguardian.com...

A better non MSM summary is found here. Surprisingly this was the first article in a Bing search I did on "climategate emails on peer review". If you do it yourself you'll see that they had to change the font and lettering just to get past the auto blocking. Salient point but I do recommend reading. It's only 17 pages long.

‘I can’t see either of these papers being in the
next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out
somehow—even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is!’
Phil
Jones
July 8,
200

IPA on Climategate

These guys set the standard. The same thing happened with Covid 19. It's a big club and you aint in it.

I ve been in academia for over a decade and I can tell you the same thing again and again. You would be surprised from the low quality of papers that make it through and much higher quality work is not even acknowledged-it doesn't fit the 'priorities'

a reply to: linda72

The BMJ is a prestigious publisher not only do they have priorities of submission but they have ethics and that's the kicker...ethics.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

The BMJ is a prestigious publisher not only do they have priorities of submission but they have ethics and that's the kicker...ethics.

It used to be but they compromised themselves when Covid came out. Having spent over a decade in academia I think the corruption is more widespread.


Professor Fenton is someone who has published over 300 papers in major scientific n medical journals n has a history in academia as one of the top scientists in his field. Nothing changed in terms of his qualities but the journals took a political view when it came to Covid n considered their 'priorities'. They don't even hide it but openly admit anything against the narrative will not make it in their journal.

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

The BMJ is a prestigious publisher not only do they have priorities of submission but they have ethics and that's the kicker...ethics.

It used to be but they compromised themselves when Covid came out. Having spent over a decade in academia I think the corruption is more widespread.


Professor Fenton is someone who has published over 300 papers in major scientific n medical journals n has a history in academia as one of the top scientists in his field. Nothing changed in terms of his qualities but the journals took a political view when it came to Covid n considered their 'priorities'. They don't even hide it but openly admit anything against the narrative will not make it in their journal.

Here, send this video to the butt hurt study paper writer and maybe he will learn how to submit a paper correctly next time.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: linda72

The BMJ is a prestigious publisher not only do they have priorities of submission but they have ethics and that's the kicker...ethics.

It used to be but they compromised themselves when Covid came out. Having spent over a decade in academia I think the corruption is more widespread.


Professor Fenton is someone who has published over 300 papers in major scientific n medical journals n has a history in academia as one of the top scientists in his field. Nothing changed in terms of his qualities but the journals took a political view when it came to Covid n considered their 'priorities'. They don't even hide it but openly admit anything against the narrative will not make it in their journal.

Here, send this video to the butt hurt study paper writer and maybe he will learn how to submit a paper correctly next time.

He doesn't have to.

He has published over 300 papers in all major journals but you seem to neglect this crucial fact. The matter is political n remains political.

a reply to: linda72

The BMJ is the most prestigious journal and he is butt hurt that he could not make it in that one. You miss this most crucial fact.