{"id":415493,"date":"2025-12-01T08:46:11","date_gmt":"2025-12-01T07:46:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=415493"},"modified":"2025-12-01T08:46:14","modified_gmt":"2025-12-01T07:46:14","slug":"peer-reviewing-peer-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=415493","title":{"rendered":"Peer-Reviewing Peer Review"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guest Post by<\/em><\/strong> Willis Eschenbach<\/a> \u00a0(@weschenbach on X, blog at\u00a0Skating Under The Ice<\/a>)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\u2019re told, endlessly, that science is a self-correcting machine. A pristine engine of truth where bad ideas are discarded, and good ones rise to the top like cream. We are told to \u201cTrust The Science<\/em>\u2122\u201c<\/em> because it has passed the magical, mystical trial known as Peer Review<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bad news. The machine is broken, the cream is curdled milk, and the gatekeepers are asleep at the switch\u2014or worse, they\u2019re selling tickets to the vandals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A new study out of Northwestern University, entitled Organized scientific fraud is growing at an alarming rate, study uncovers<\/strong><\/a>, has just pulled back the curtain on what many have said for years. It turns out that \u201corganized scientific fraud\u201d isn\u2019t just a few rogue grad students fudging a data point. No. It is a global, industrial-scale operation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the study, we are now dealing with \u201csophisticated global networks\u201d<\/em> that function essentially as criminal organizations. They aren\u2019t just faking results; they are manufacturing entire fake scientific careers. They sell authorship slots on bogus papers like they\u2019re selling condos in Florida. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

You want to be a \u201cFirst Author\u201d on a groundbreaking physics paper? That\u2019ll be $5,000. You want to be a co-author? We have a discount on aisle three.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study notes that this fraud is \u201coutpacing the growth rate of legitimate scientific publications.\u201d<\/em> Think about that. The cancer is growing faster than the host.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

YIKES!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the peer-review system, that vaunted shield that is supposed to protect us from error? It\u2019s acting less like a shield and more like a sieve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But wait. Before we blame this all on shadowy \u201ccriminal networks\u201d and nameless paper mills overseas, let\u2019s look a little closer to home. Because the rot isn\u2019t just coming from outside the house. It\u2019s coming from the basement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ve seen this movie before. I\u2019ve lived it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Years ago, I wrote about my peer-review experiences with Dr. Michael Mann, author of the infamous \u201cHockey Stick.\u201d I called him a \u201cSmooth Operator<\/a>\u201c, and I meant it. In the climate world, \u201cpeer review\u201d has too often morphed into \u201cpal review.\u201d It\u2019s a cozy club where friends rubber-stamp friends\u2019 papers and, more importantly, block the publication of a study from anyone like me who dares to question the \u201cConsensus.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

And as I detailed in \u201cFreedom of Information, My Okole<\/a>\u201c, I\u2019ve spent years asking for the data and code behind these taxpayer-funded studies. And what do I get? Stonewalling. Refusals. As Phil Jones told Warwick Hughes, \u201cWhy should I show you my data when you only want to find something wrong with it?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is not science. That is a priesthood protecting its dogma.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The current peer-review system is a black box. An editor sends a paper to two or three anonymous reviewers. If those reviewers are the author\u2019s pals, the paper gets a pass. If the author is an outsider, or a skeptic, the reviewers can kill the paper in secret, with no accountability, for reasons that have nothing to do with the science and everything to do with protecting their turf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Of course, only an extremely rare, perfectly honest reviewer is going to allow the publication of any study that demolishes the very foundations of the work that he\u2019s spent his life building and expounding. As Upton Sinclair famously explained, \u201cIt is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it\u201d<\/em>. I call that the \u201cSinclair Trap\u201d, and it\u2019s far too easy to fall into.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, the Sinclair Trap is even worse for scientists because it\u2019s not just money. I\u2019ve said before that \u201cScience is a blood sport\u201d<\/em>. What I meant was that any new scientific discovery or understanding has the possibility of being very costly, not just to the salary, but to the prized professional reputation of the holders of the previous view. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It doesn\u2019t have to be costly if the scientist whose prior work is discredited is honest, open about it, and willing to move forward and embrace and further the new understanding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But that\u2019s not every scientist. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And now, we see the result. A system so opaque and unaccountable that it can be gamed by criminal syndicates on one end and ideological gatekeepers on the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, what do we do? Do we just throw up our hands and say \u201cScience is hard\u201d?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No. Just no.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We need a total overhaul. A complete tear-down of the secrecy that allows this problem to thrive in the dark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ve proposed a solution before, and I\u2019ll propose it again. I call it Peer Review Plus<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s how it works. It\u2019s simple, it\u2019s cheap, and it would solve 90% of these problems overnight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, you keep the traditional peer review. But here is the kicker: You publish everything.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When a paper is published, you don\u2019t just publish the paper. You publish the entire<\/em> correspondence between the authors and the reviewers. You publish the reviewers\u2019 and editors\u2019 names. You publish their objections, and the authors\u2019 rebuttals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let the world see how the sausage was made. If a reviewer gave a paper a pass because they\u2019re pals, it will be obvious. If a reviewer blocked a paper because they didn\u2019t like the conclusion, that will be obvious too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But I\u2019d go further.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We should also publish any valuable rejected<\/strong> papers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science proceeds by falsification. When a paper is rejected, it\u2019s usually because a reviewer claims to have found a flaw. That falsification, valid or not, is a valuable piece of scientific data. But right now, it\u2019s thrown in the trash bin of history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If a reviewer rejects my paper, I want that rejection\u2014and my answer to it\u2014on the public record. Let the community decide if the rejection was valid or if it was just gatekeeping.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We also need an \u201cOpen Review\u201d system where publishing the data and code are mandatory. As my friend Mosh used to say \u201cNo code, no data, no science\u201d<\/em>. This should result in \u201cNo publication\u201d<\/em>. Period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then, once it\u2019s published, open the floor. Allow moderated, non-anonymous comments on the web from the larger scientific community and the public. The truth is that this public peer review by the larger world is the only truly valuable review.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Northwestern study says we need to \u201cpolice ourselves better.\u201d<\/em> They\u2019re half right. We don\u2019t need more police. We need more lights and more transparency. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Right now, the scientific establishment is operating in a windowless room, and the mold is taking over.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We need to stop treating \u201cPeer Reviewed\u201d as a stamp of divine truth and start treating it for what it is: a fallible, human, and currently deeply corruptible process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Until we pry the doors open and let the public see who is paying whom, who is reviewing whom, what the objections to the study were, and where the data actually is, this fraud will continue. The paper mills will keep churning, the pals will keep reviewing, and the public trust in science will continue its long, slow slide into the gutter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both the public and the scientists deserve better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

w.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PS\u2014After writing the above, I thought I\u2019d use perplexity to educate me on the history of peer-review. As always, there\u2019s more for me to learn. This is a good question for AI, since the history is not a highly debated subject. I asked:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is the history of the peer-review process in scientific publication? Who pushed for it? Who objected to it?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I included my standard instructions about not guessing, using primary sources, and the like. Here\u2019s the response:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

===<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peer review in scientific publishing developed gradually from informal editorial consultation in the seventeenth century to standardized external refereeing after the Second World War, with strong institutional support from major learned societies and leading journals, and persistent criticism from scientists and methodologists who argued that it is conservative, biased, and often unreliable. No single individual \u201cinvented\u201d modern peer review, and surviving historical documentation does not support attributing it to one specific person; rather, it emerged through incremental practices at journals such as Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society and later formal policies at journals such as Nature. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Early editorial review (17th\u201318th centuries)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 In 1665, Henry Oldenburg began editing Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society and sought advice from knowledgeable colleagues to decide which submissions to print, which historians regard as a precursor to formal refereeing, although it was not systematic external peer review in the modern sense. [2] [8] [7]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 In the eighteenth century, the Royal Society created a Committee of Papers that could accept, postpone, reject, or refer manuscripts to designated members for expert evaluation, embedding internal scientific judgment into the journal\u2019s constitution but still without standardized, anonymous external review. [3] [8] [7]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Nineteenth\u2011century institutionalization<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 During the nineteenth century, Philosophical Transactions and other society journals increasingly used written reports from selected referees, often Fellows of the society, to guide publication decisions, making the process more formal and collective than Oldenburg\u2019s largely personal editorial control. [7] [3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Historians of science emphasize that practices varied widely among journals and disciplines, and that even where referee reports existed, they were not yet a universal or uniform requirement for all scientific papers. [4] [2]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Twentieth\u2011century \u201cmodern\u201d peer review<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 After the Second World War, rapid growth in the number of manuscripts, expansion of specialized fields, and rising journal prestige led many journals to adopt routine external refereeing by domain experts, which is often identified as the birth of \u201cmodern\u201d peer review. [9] [1] [4]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 By the late 1960s and early 1970s, leading journals such as Nature had formal peer review systems, and the term \u201cpeer review\u201d itself came into widespread use, supported by citation-tracking infrastructures that rewarded publication in peer\u2011reviewed venues. [10] [4] [9]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Who pushed for peer review?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Documentary evidence shows that officers and councils of learned societies, particularly the Royal Society of London and similar bodies in Europe and North America, pushed for more systematic expert evaluation to protect scientific reputation, manage limited printing budgets, and filter the growing volume of submissions. [2] [3] [7]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Editors and publishers of major journals in medicine and the natural sciences in the mid\u2011twentieth century promoted external peer review as a quality\u2011control and gatekeeping mechanism, and later governmental and funding agencies reinforced its use by tying research assessment and career advancement to publication in peer\u2011reviewed outlets. [6] [1] [4]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Who objected to peer review?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Historical and contemporary analyses document objections from prominent scientists, including Albert Einstein, who was notably resistant when one of his papers was subjected to anonymous external review, as well as from later critics who argue that peer review can suppress innovative or unconventional work. [5] [11]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Methodological critiques in the biomedical and social\u2011science literature have highlighted problems such as low inter\u2011reviewer agreement, bias, conservative preference for established paradigms, and limited ability to detect errors or fraud, and some scholars have called for major reforms or even abolition of traditional pre\u2011publication peer review in favor of alternative models. [12] [13] [1] [6]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Limitations: <\/strong> The surviving primary records (editorial minutes, correspondence, referee reports) are incomplete and uneven across journals, so attributions of \u201cfirst use\u201d and lists of specific individuals who pushed or objected are necessarily partial, and no primary source provides a complete, definitive chronology for all disciplines. [14] [7] [2]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [1](https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC11215012\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [2](https:\/\/ethos.lps.library.cmu.edu\/article\/id\/19\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [3](https:\/\/arts.st-andrews.ac.uk\/philosophicaltransactions\/brief-history-of-phil-trans\/phil-trans-in-19th-century\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [4](https:\/\/blog.f1000.com\/2020\/01\/31\/a-brief-history-of-peer-review\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [5](https:\/\/theconversation.com\/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-too-27405<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [6](https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC4975196\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [7](https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC4360128\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [8](https:\/\/arts.st-andrews.ac.uk\/philosophicaltransactions\/brief-history-of-phil-trans\/phil-trans-in-18th-century\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [9](https:\/\/mitcommlab.mit.edu\/broad\/commkit\/peer-review-a-historical-perspective\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [10](https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=RGuaua10oRE<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [11](https:\/\/www.experimental-history.com\/p\/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [12](https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/12127284\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [13](https:\/\/mediatheoryjournal.org\/2018\/09\/03\/mieke-bal-lets-abolish-the-peer-review-system\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [14](https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/d41586-024-03287-4<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We\u2019re told, endlessly, that science is a self-correcting machine. A pristine engine of truth where bad ideas are discarded, and good ones rise to the top like cream. We are told to\u00a0\u201cTrust The Science\u2122\u201c\u00a0because it has passed the magical, mystical trial known as\u00a0Peer Review.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":415499,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":true,"token":"eyJpbWciOiJodHRwczpcL1wvY2xpbWF0ZS1zY2llbmNlLnByZXNzXC93cC1jb250ZW50XC91cGxvYWRzXC8yMDI1XC8xMlwvMEFRT0hRTHBRWi1IQkdWRFJtR2IyLWZNc2FZNVF2Sll5cEpaR0RyUWw3dWlyd3JPODlFQTIzN2N0NlB0UE13ZVp0MmlBb2RiT21JNmdmYmNjSGxCbWNLdkNiVWVfNC1iS0pkLVpNNG5iYzF5YjNCVVFlQ285eHRLSERzbW1xcTlYLTEtMTAyNHg1NzguanBlZyIsInR4dCI6IlBlZXItUmV2aWV3aW5nIFBlZXIgUmV2aWV3IiwidGVtcGxhdGUiOiJoaWdod2F5IiwiZm9udCI6IiIsImJsb2dfaWQiOjE1NTgxMjQ0OX0.w-WqYErhS3iMVZpkLilPHVVvhBIipOAhetSCZ-z-nnIMQ"},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691839907,691839906,691820450,691839908,691839905,691827037],"class_list":{"0":"post-415493","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-sophisticated-global-networks","9":"tag-criminal-organizations","10":"tag-dr-michael-mann","11":"tag-fake-scientific-careers","12":"tag-organized-scientific-fraud","13":"tag-peer-review","15":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0AQOHQLpQZ-HBGVDRmGb2-fMsaY5QvJYypJZGDrQl7uirwrO89EA237ct6PtPMweZt2iAodbOmI6gfbccHlBmcKvCbUe_4-bKJd-ZM4nbc1yb3BUQeCo9xtKHDsmmqq9X-1.jpeg?fit=1507%2C850&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1K5v","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":196226,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=196226","url_meta":{"origin":415493,"position":0},"title":"Peer Review Plus","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"16\/04\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach A Modest Proposal\u00a0For Improving Peer Review Abstract. A proposal is made for the design of a specific type of post-publication peer review. Background In 2006, the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine published a widely cited paper (960 citations) by Richard Smith entitled\u00a0\u201cPeer review:\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/00Screenshot-2022-04-16-210813.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/00Screenshot-2022-04-16-210813.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/00Screenshot-2022-04-16-210813.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/00Screenshot-2022-04-16-210813.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":303551,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=303551","url_meta":{"origin":415493,"position":1},"title":"Peer review expert journal accidentally publishes fake AI image with gibberish and giant gonads on a rat","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"20\/02\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"It\u2019s not just that a clever AI image slipped through peer review, it\u2019s that it was garishly fake in a supersize kind of way. Scientifically everything about it was radioactive satire and yet it still got through \u201cpeer review\u201d.\u00a0 The words are gibberish. The editors didn\u2019t even run a spell\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"AI image\"","block_context":{"text":"AI image","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=ai-image"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0CosmosWeekly-PeerReview_LEAD-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0CosmosWeekly-PeerReview_LEAD-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0CosmosWeekly-PeerReview_LEAD-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0CosmosWeekly-PeerReview_LEAD-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0CosmosWeekly-PeerReview_LEAD-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330187,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=330187","url_meta":{"origin":415493,"position":2},"title":"So much for \u201cpeer review\u201d \u2014 Wiley shuts down 19 science journals and retracts 11,000 gobbledygook papers","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"27\/05\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Proving that unpaid anonymous review is worth every cent, the 217 year old Wiley science publisher \u201cpeer reviewed\u201d 11,300 papers that were fake, and didn\u2019t even notice. It\u2019s not just a scam, it\u2019s an industry. Naked \u201cgobbledygook sandwiches\u201d got past peer review, and the expert reviewers didn\u2019t so much as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"AI\"","block_context":{"text":"AI","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=ai"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Big-brother-is-watching-you-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Big-brother-is-watching-you-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Big-brother-is-watching-you-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Big-brother-is-watching-you-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Big-brother-is-watching-you-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":440829,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=440829","url_meta":{"origin":415493,"position":3},"title":"From Einstein’s Disdain to the Turbidite Orthodoxy: How Blind Peer Review Stifles Scientific Progress","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"22\/04\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Shanmugam argues that while peer review serves as a quality-control mechanism for scientific publishing and grants, it suffers from deep, systemic flaws that hinder innovation and fairness. He notes that Albert Einstein expressed disdain for peer review, and that the system\u2014often conducted as double-blind review to mask identities\u2014loses the transparency\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Bias\"","block_context":{"text":"Bias","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bias"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-From-Einsteins-Disdain-to-the-Turbidite-Orthodoxy-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-From-Einsteins-Disdain-to-the-Turbidite-Orthodoxy-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-From-Einsteins-Disdain-to-the-Turbidite-Orthodoxy-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-From-Einsteins-Disdain-to-the-Turbidite-Orthodoxy-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":237374,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=237374","url_meta":{"origin":415493,"position":4},"title":"The Rise and Fall of Peer Review","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/01\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Adam Mastroianni\u00a0has written a marvelous article at his\u00a0substack, Experimental History, evaluating the history, the function and the misfunction of the peer review process.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-38.png?fit=1100%2C751&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-38.png?fit=1100%2C751&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-38.png?fit=1100%2C751&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-38.png?fit=1100%2C751&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-38.png?fit=1100%2C751&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":440832,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=440832","url_meta":{"origin":415493,"position":5},"title":"How Blind Peer Review Stifles Scientific Progress","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"22\/04\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The paper \"The Peer-Review Problem: A Sedimentological Perspective\" is a 2022 article (published in the Journal of the Indian Association of Sedimentologists, vol. 39, pp. 3\u201324) by G. Shanmugam, a geologist with extensive experience in process sedimentology and petroleum geology.","rel":"","context":"In \"Biomedical literature\"","block_context":{"text":"Biomedical literature","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=biomedical-literature"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/415493","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=415493"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/415493\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":415501,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/415493\/revisions\/415501"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/415499"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=415493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=415493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=415493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}