I'm always baffled that only putting "PH. D." in big letters is apparently enough to grant an author universal authority, somehow the actual subject one has stu

I'm always baffled that only putting "PH. D." in big letters is apparently enough to grant an author universal authority, somehow the actual subject one has studied is of no importance to a lot of people. Anyway, this piece doesn't actually have much to say about the practical aspects of peer review, this is about it: > Peer reviewers don’t have the time, effort, or inclination to pick over new research with a fine-toothed comb, let alone give it more than a long glance. Basically, "it's broken, there's massive fraud" is a statement proved by assertion which ironically is the type of shoddy work the text is supposed to oppose. For a different perspective, see "The replication crisis is not a crisis of false positives" Coleman et al 2024, https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/rkyf7 https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/rkyf7