Editing Peer Review (section)

=== 2020 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230889296900452353
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So ... Forgive me. Wouldn’t that call Peer Review into question then?
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230888559411789824
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I wouldn’t worry. My friends assure me this will all be caught easily in Peer Review before publication.

What stage are these drafts in *before* release?
{{Tweet
|image=MicrobiomDigest-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/MicrobiomDigest/status/1230794470855069697
|name=Elisabeth Bik
|usernameurl=https://x.com/MicrobiomDigest
|username=MicrobiomDigest
|content=I am ringing the alarm.
We have now found >400 papers that all share a very similar title layout, graph layout, and (most importantly) the same Western blot layout. 
This is a massive #PaperMill of (what we assume) fabricated data.
|timestamp=9:00 AM · Feb 21, 2020
}}
|timestamp=3:14 PM · Feb 21, 2020
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230889071582433280
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Wait...what? But that’s impossible!
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=MicrobiomDigest-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/MicrobiomDigest/status/1230799216454201344
|name=Elisabeth Bik
|usernameurl=https://x.com/MicrobiomDigest
|username=MicrobiomDigest
|content=It is extremely disturbing that most of these 400 papers have passed #PeerReview. The Western blot figures look too regular and have the same background. None of the 800+ peer reviewers or editors asked critical questions about such figures. Don't be that peer reviewer.
|timestamp=9:19 AM · Feb 21, 2020
}}
|timestamp=4:16 PM · Feb 21, 2020
}}
|timestamp=4:17 PM · Feb 21, 2020
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1234871059553366017
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The first clue is “98% said they considered peer review important or extremely important”. 

Ahem. 98% is the kind of numbers dictators put up in sham elections.

Study the history here. This is the journal that wouldn’t Peer Review the Double Helix.

This mob is perfectly wrong.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1234871052582309888
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Thanks for this! In essence the article says that Peer Review isn’t even Peer Reviewable because we haven’t been able to get good data. Yet it has 98% support of researchers with nearly zero data and an incorrect first sentence in the premier science journal, Nature. #ResIpsaBaby
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=wolfejosh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/wolfejosh/status/1234820077213622273
|name=Josh Wolfe
|usernameurl=https://x.com/wolfejosh
|username=wolfejosh
|content=Peer review under—peer review

Calling @EricRWeinstein @BretWeinstein shining light on “DISC” distributed idea suppression complex

Scientists study phenomena to REVEAL them—we ought study scientists to REVEAL phenomena of scientists who SUPPRESS (& why)
https://nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00500-y
|media1=wolfejosh-X-post-1234820077213622273-ESL2TxDWsAIXHEl.jpg
|timestamp=11:37 AM · Mar 3, 2020
}}
|timestamp=3:59 PM · Mar 3, 2020
}}
|timestamp=3:59 PM · Mar 3, 2020
|media1=ERW-X-post-1234871059553366017-ESMkrqfWoAAJc6w.jpg
}}