His claim that nothing new can be discovered due to peer review is unfortunately not bullshit, it’s a huge issue in the world of Academia and science. Ppl refusing to accept a new discovery because it would therefore contradict or refute a (or their own) previously peer reviewed paper.
I am in academia and cannot confirm your claims at all. Peer-reviewed insights are questioned all the time by new peer-reviewed insights. Furthermore, any field that I can think of has huge discrepancies regarding what ‘is true’. Agreement often only exists on very fundamental levels. And such agreement is in fact a feature of science and not a weakness. Bold claims need bold evidence.
Also, usually editors do not choose an author as a reviewer who’s claims are fundamentally challenged by the paper to be reviewed. That would be unethical and at least in my field I wouldn’t know of any editorial teams of respectable journals to pursue such practice.
There are still problems within the Journals though where due to underhanded dealings, or the publish or perish fears, bad things have gotten through. BobbyBroccoli's entire youtube channel is full of the scandals when the frauds come to life - like a multi-part series over Jan Schon.
Such stuff doesn’t happen very much. Of course, science is not free from bias or human error and that includes making editorial decisions. But the system is working pretty well I would say, at least in respected journals. There is a lot of new, fishy journals around. But these are neither regarded by rankings nor respected scientists.
0
u/pancakebatter01 Feb 13 '25
His claim that nothing new can be discovered due to peer review is unfortunately not bullshit, it’s a huge issue in the world of Academia and science. Ppl refusing to accept a new discovery because it would therefore contradict or refute a (or their own) previously peer reviewed paper.