April 21, 2026

The Phoniness of Peer Review

Timothy Birdnow

This from Christ Martz, Senior meteorologist at Millersville University:

Peer-review is not a part of real science. Period.
The peer-review system, as it exists in its current form, has only existed since the 1970s (maybe 1960s in some cases). It is a relatively modern academic gatekeeping process, not an ancient pillar of science. Issac Newton, Galileo, Charles Darwin, and even Einstein's work (specifically, his four Annus Mirabilis papers in 1905) were all written or published without "peer-review.”
Science advances with evidence, replication, and falsifiability. "Peer-reviewers” typically do none of the above things when reading over a paper submitted to an academic journal. Reviewers are just anonymous "experts” that stamp approval for any papers they happen to agree with and reject ones that challenge their own biases.
But as I have previously said, any of my online critics that demand I publish a paper in a journal can pay me to do it themselves. I am not an academic. I am not a federal employee. I work in the private sector. It is not reasonable to expect me to drop thousands of dollars on a paper to cover paywalled data access fees and a journal's submission and/or publication fee(s). Either put your own money where your mouth is, or shut up about it and drop the stamp-collecting credentialism.
I don't need a M.S. or Ph.D. to analyze data or assess claims made by scientists and find errors in them. For hundreds of years, valid science happened outside of peer-reviewed journals because they simply didn't exist, at least in modern form. I also do not believe in using taxpayer dollars to conduct scientific research via NSF grants, etc.
Just because something has been "peer-reviewed” does not mean it is accurate.
And just because something hasn't been subject to academic circle jerks doesn't mean it isn't valid.
Your peers agreeing with your ideas does not make your theory valid.
"Peer-review” approval not the arbiter of truth.
It's gatekeeping because people are biased, scientists included.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.




What colour is a green orange?




22kb generated in CPU 0.182, elapsed 0.3537 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.3395 seconds, 182 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Always on Watch
America First News
The American Thinker
Bird`s Articles
Old Birdblog
Birdblog`s Literary Corner
Behind the Black Blaze News
Borngino Report
Canada Free Press
Center for Immigration Studies
Common Sense and Wonder < br/ > Christian Daily Reporter
Citizens Free Press
>Climatescepticsparty> Daily Caller News Foundation
Conservative Angle
Conservative Treehouse
Daren Jonescu
The Daily Fetched
Dana and Martha Music Discern Report
From the Heart Music
On my Mind Conservative Victory
Eco-Imperialism
Gelbspan Files Just the Facts
Infidel Bloggers Alliance
Jo Nova
Lifezette
Let .the Truth be Told
Newsmax
Not the Bee
>Numbers Watch
OANN
Real Climate Science
The Reform Club
Revolver
FTP Student Action
Veritas PAC
FunMurphys
The Galileo Movement
Intellectual Conservative
br /> Liberty Unboound
One Jerusalem
Powerline
Publius Forum
Ready Rants
The Gateway Pundit
The Jeffersonian Ideal
Thinking Democrat
Ultima Thule
Western Journalism
Science Daily
Science Tech Daily
Young Craig Music
Contact Tim at bgocciaatoutlook.com

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 63542
  • Files: 4099
  • Bytes: 1312.9M
  • CPU Time: 102:10
  • Queries: 1870321

Content

  • Posts: 32813
  • Comments: 133817

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0