It saddens me that all the replies to your post are nit-picking over the cold fusion side. I never heard that the arsenic-based life paper had been discredited

It saddens me that all the replies to your post are nit-picking over the cold fusion side. I never heard that the arsenic-based life paper had been discredited or had anything wrong with it until I saw this link. The main point is that someone working at Science wrote a bunch of fake papers and ascribed them to fake African scientists (which bugs me a lot, since it might both assume and create discrimination) and showed that a bunch of open access journals don't do peer review properly but he didn't do the same thing to the conventional journals. Where's the control group? Any scientist will tell you over drinks about peers who double-publish, fake data, and force anyone whose work they review to cite their own work. I'm reminded of the scandalous story (in the New Yorker a few years ago, sorry no link) of a famous -- Fields Medallist no less -- mathematician who took over a journal and started publishing his own and disciples' work without review to get the jump on rivals -- and does a science get more assumed credit for perfection than Math?