There was likely more fraud as well.
For most of scientific history, there was no peer review in current fashion, or most, just a quick editor judgment. Maybe this is a superior approach as the time to publication is heavily reduced and there are fewer potentially biased gatekeepers. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjb%2Fe2011-20545-7 …pic.twitter.com/BAZv0NTokm
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't know much about these publication things but if you make a paper public this can be revised by any other person (expert or not) and replicated so I can't see why the peer review thing is so important
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.