How Peer Review has been corrupted by WR zealots

[James DiEugenio]

 

Gary Aguilar's excellent exposure of the likes of Nick Nalli and Larry Sturdivan and how they have rigged the academic review process. 

These guys never quit.   And they do not give one iota about what constitutes scholarly review.  And they do not tell you the tricks they pull to get into these journals.  Thanks Gary.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/peer-reviewed-medical-scientific-journalism-has-been-corrupted-by-warren-commission-apologists

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Gary Aguilar's excellent exposure of the likes of Nick Nalli and Larry Sturdivan and how they have rigged the academic review process. 

These guys never quit.   And they do not give one iota about what constitutes scholarly review.  And they do not tell you the tricks they pull to get into these journals.  Thanks Gary.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/peer-reviewed-medical-scientific-journalism-has-been-corrupted-by-warren-commission-apologists

Gary Aguilar has been another terrific researcher and expositor on the JFKA. Like all of his work, the above link is well worth the read. 

[W. Niederhut]

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Gary Aguilar's excellent exposure of the likes of Nick Nalli and Larry Sturdivan and how they have rigged the academic review process. 

These guys never quit.   And they do not give one iota about what constitutes scholarly review.  And they do not tell you the tricks they pull to get into these journals.  Thanks Gary.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/peer-reviewed-medical-scientific-journalism-has-been-corrupted-by-warren-commission-apologists

Outstanding analysis.

I don't want to hijack this important thread about the JFK assassination, but want to mention that a similar pseudo-scientific, "academic" methodology has been used to obscure the facts about the explosive demolitions of the WTC buildings on 9/11.

It's the propaganda technique of argument from "authority."

Edited November 28, 2021 by W. Niederhut

[Guest]

The process is being mirrored in many industries, including science & medicine. Money talks, impartiality is dead. 

[Micah Mileto]

Conspiracy theorists seem to be PARTIALLY at fault. People just don't have all the time in the world. Investigators rarely have the resources to spend on what seems like a gamble. It can take years to gather enough information to PRESENT a possible smoking gun for a theory, let alone proving it. Consider how embarrassing it feels to post a comment supporting something that you didn't know was debunked - maybe an internet commenter could afford to lose a little face like that, but what should the editor of the New York Times do? All of the good stuff is scattered around instead of being neatly organized, which makes it harder for others to research and verify stuff. And with obscure political topics like this, a skeptical audience will dismiss secondary sources, even as a jumping off point for their research. But without secondary sources, interpreting the primary sources could become a matter of spending weeks/months/years researching. Probably only a few people in the world have the skills necessary to teach quality JFK conspiracy info to your average skeptical audience. What should a newsperson  think when they are trying to decide on what topic to cover?