I agree with Moldoveanu that the incentive structure at many open access journals is backwards (even though I empathize with the intent of the journals). But at

I agree with Moldoveanu that the incentive structure at many open access journals is backwards (even though I empathize with the intent of the journals). But at the same time I don't think this has anything to do with this particular crack (assuming it is a crack) in peer review, which would have happened anyway at any number of journals. I agree with you that it might be better to just publish in archives or use academic organization fees or something to cover costs of some kind of peer review system. On the other hand, I've seen both sides of this coin. Assuming Moldoveanu is correct, every once in awhile this happens and it's frustrating as a reviewer. I was once in a very similar position as a reviewer at a statistics journal, where someone submitted and eventually published something that flew in the face of well-established findings and proofs, due to a simple but easily overlooked and consequential error in one of the derivations. When I reached out to the journal about a commentary or letter to the editor, I was stonewalled in a similar way and got the sense the journal was trying to save face over the error. I actually respected the author and think they made a simple mistake but still think it was worth a correction or at least discussion. At the same time, I've seen cases that look and sound just like this to an outsider, where some contingent of researchers gangs up on someone with a sense of self-righteousness to assert their authority over something, but they're actually completely one hundred percent wrong about it. A smear campaign that looks just like these published refutations of Christian's claims, that look very intelligent and rigorous (and in some sense are), that are nonetheless completely dead wrong. Someone on HN would see a blog post just like this, by the equivalent of Moldoveanu complaining about the incompetence of the journal etc, how Christian is incompetent, etc, and would just assume that because Moldoveanu is asserting some claim to rigor, they must be correct, and the person not doing so is incorrect. This case is different because of course we're talking about Bell's Theorem, so our prior about it being wrong is skewed strongly in the contrary direction. But in many cases, most cases in academics, which side is right or wrong isn't always clear. There's just one party who claims the other party is incorrect, and others just kind of adopt one side or another. Do we assume the majority is correct? I'm not really sure what my point is, other than that indignation doesn't really persuade me so much anymore. I can empathize with it, I've been there -- but really in the end all that can be done is to make your case and just make it again whenever you're asked or the topic comes up. Really the broader issue is about gish gallop and Brandolini's law which seems to be the norm now in many facets of life, and what, if anything, to do about it.