"Prove". From what I have read so far, they showed that if you completely fabricate the data and follow the advice of peer reviewers, you can end up at a publ

"Prove". From what I have read so far, they showed that if you completely fabricate the data and follow the advice of peer reviewers, you can end up at a published paper. Thank you, Captain Obvious. Had these valiant warriors heard of Diederik Stapel, they would have known that fraudsters already made this point. Extensively. These fighters for academic rigour seem to have lost sight of their own academic rigour in this "experiment". Peer review is insufficient to catch fraudulent submissions. This is not a surprise as much as a misunderstanding of what peer review is. To be clear: to show something, the authors should have shown that the ideas were obviously false, not that fraudulent data that supports findings would go undetected. Einstein's famous works were considered patently absurd at the time. The only way to substantiate or refute such ideas is with data. An experiment that abuses this to "show" anything is, itself, patently absurd.