[Quix]

Peer-review is a quality-control measure

You seem to really believe that.

You're a scientist and you're UNAWARE of how grossly--often almost unreadably--poorly written most scientific journal articles are?

You're a scientist and you're UNAWARE of how grossly shallow and insignificant most scientific articles are?

You're a scientist and you're UNAWARE of how grossly petty the vetting of most journal articles can be?

Yet you still hold to the farcical religious dogma that peer review is about quality instead of about PRIMARILY vetting whether the author is holding to the nihilistic Religion of Scientism??? One can publish all manner of garbage in peer review articles as long as one scratches where the Bishops of the irrational Religion of Scientism itch.

I haven't read the whole thread. What science are you a professional in?

[exDemMom]

I suppose your extensive knowledge of the quality of scientific journals and the mechanics of the peer-review process comes from having read thousands of scientific articles published in dozens or hundreds of peer-review journals, and from having participated extensively in the peer-review process, either as an author or a reviewer?

Or are those just talking points you found in some “creation science” blog-screed floating around the internet?

P.S. Using various sizes and types of font in different colors doesn’t make a weak, baseless argument into a strong one. In fact, it just highlights the fact that you have nothing substantive to say. Likewise with personal attacks and insults to people’s intelligence.