For those interested, the number of very likely fraudulent ivermectin studies showing a huge benefit has shot up from 1 a few weeks ago to 5 now
I suspect there's more to come 
-
-
They don't want to discover problems.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Seems like a good way to improve on peer review would be to hire a bunch of these 'randoms' and pay them to do this as their day job.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
No-one is banned from talking about it.
End of conversation
-
-
-
One could say the same of climate sceptic* papers that slide into the literature. Similar motivations perhaps. Here’s an example from two decades ago.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I like it - "Open Source Peer Review". The software world is driven (in part) by open-sourcing work. To be considered a Tier1 coder, participating in open-source is almost a requirement. You may have started a trend ....
-
isn't
@PubPeer a kind of Open Source Peer Review? - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Serious question, why do you assume they were unpaid randoms? In my experience, bad faith "science" at this scale is not a passion project. It's at the intersection of misinformation and money. Have seen it over & over.
-
No I mean the error-checkers are unpaid randoms. I'm not getting paid for this and none of the other people doing it are either. We're also not ivermectin researchers
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.