>Wow. Pretty clear this paper was not peer reviewed. Many of the arguments would not get past a high school English teacher. How is that clear? There are plent

>Wow. Pretty clear this paper was not peer reviewed. Many of the arguments would not get past a high school English teacher. How is that clear? There are plenty of papers out there that contain glaring errors and got accepted anyway, if you regularly read publications you should know this better than anyone. Also you confirm one of their criticisms and contradict your own argument that peer review helps improve scientific literature. What do you base that on, apart from belief?