I did not say that the reviewers were generally incapable of properly reviewing papers, I said that they are less likely to. While most have only the best inten

I did not say that the reviewers were generally incapable of properly reviewing papers, I said that they are less likely to. While most have only the best intentions, those who are capable of subjecting research to proper scrutiny tend to be extremely busy with their own projects as well, especially considering the short time frame they often have for review. The default is to assume that if it passes the lowest threshold for academic rigour (slightly higher than the crackpot test), and conforms to certain practices which vary by field, it is publishable. I was exaggerating, and for the most part respected journals are of high quality. That does not necessarily have anything to do with the review process. I tend to believe it has more to do with the character of those who choose to do such research (without other significant monetary motivations than the long-shot that what they're working on may produce marketable results). Regardless, I would not suggest that the review process is not useful and necessary, as it is the best system we have, and works well for the most part given the dynamics of the system it exists in. I simply wanted to point out that it is very far from perfect or provably reliable (I'd argue most academically dishonest research slips through as not notable enough to warrant particular scrutiny anyway and fades into obscurity without question) and that it is vulnerable to gaming by sufficiently knowledgeable people. Well, that got me off topic without even being the main thrust of my original post. Hit a nerve and started rambling. apologies if my comments came out more critical than I actually feel.