It's a given all the important science journals are captured. So much of their published "science" is BS. I can tell this and my last science class was in 11th grade.
99 percent of the important mainstream media "news organizations" are captured (the one percent that's maybe not fully captured is Fox News and they just fired their best truth-speaking talking head).
What important "truth-seeking" organization is not captured? A prize to anyone who can identify this organization.
No, Fox news is completely captured. It's "controlled opposition", so to the average person, it looks like real opposition. But they stop short of alienating their funding sources. I'm pretty sure that's the overriding reason Tucker got the boot. Now he's free to say whatever he wants.. I think..
After Tucker was fired, I now think this is almost certainly the case with Fox. I think they fired him because the election is coming up and his monologues and interview segments were starting to resonate with far too many people. He might have been instrumental in keeping "Joe Biden" (or his chosen successor/replacement) from being "elected." So that election result is very important to finish the rest of their unfinished agendas.
You're right about alienating funding sources. His show was "blacklisted" by every company that advertises in the world. If that's not a "tell" about "coordination" among "club members" I don't know what is. So now the 8 p.m. time slot can run commercials from companies besides "My Pillow."
Some say Tucker will reach more people on Twitter ... and he clearly is ... but these 10-minute monologues don't have the same bite or depth or variety as an hour-long show. So I think they have succeeded in keeping he (and his large staff) from doing a lot of the segments they don't want to see.
You bet your booties it is and has been for the last 30 years. Everything "medical" related is RIGGED to the gills otherwise the entire empire of fake drugs and fake doctors would blow up .
Former academic here. I fully acknowledge that there are major issues with peer review. However, there is an important and legitimate reason for authors to suggest reviewers to *exclude* - if a competing scientist is selected as your peer reviewer and they are not fully ethical, they can inappropriately stonewall the review process to allow time for their work to be published first, or they can outright steal your work. The “glory” in academic research goes to who published the discovery first, not to who published best. They often can get away with it because of the anonymity of the process. It happened to me, it happened to my research mentor, and it happened to good friends of mine. You submit a rationale for excluding reviewers, which editors can choose to ignore.
The suggestions for including reviewers is often because editors cover a large swath of research and are often unlikely to know suitable people who can accurately and fairly judge the paper, so you give them suggested names to speed up the process. This one is obviously more easily abused by picking friends.
The editor is supposed to have the final say and can ignore your suggestions, but when they have dozens of papers or more to process daily, corners are inevitably going to be cut.
The ability to suggest reviewers is a part of standard peer review process at almost every journal. While there are pros and cons, in itself this is not news. The authors are not told by the editors whether their suggestions were ultimately used. A collusion with the editors would be a sign of corruption, but the message cited here doesn't prove it.
It's a given all the important science journals are captured. So much of their published "science" is BS. I can tell this and my last science class was in 11th grade.
99 percent of the important mainstream media "news organizations" are captured (the one percent that's maybe not fully captured is Fox News and they just fired their best truth-speaking talking head).
What important "truth-seeking" organization is not captured? A prize to anyone who can identify this organization.
No, Fox news is completely captured. It's "controlled opposition", so to the average person, it looks like real opposition. But they stop short of alienating their funding sources. I'm pretty sure that's the overriding reason Tucker got the boot. Now he's free to say whatever he wants.. I think..
After Tucker was fired, I now think this is almost certainly the case with Fox. I think they fired him because the election is coming up and his monologues and interview segments were starting to resonate with far too many people. He might have been instrumental in keeping "Joe Biden" (or his chosen successor/replacement) from being "elected." So that election result is very important to finish the rest of their unfinished agendas.
You're right about alienating funding sources. His show was "blacklisted" by every company that advertises in the world. If that's not a "tell" about "coordination" among "club members" I don't know what is. So now the 8 p.m. time slot can run commercials from companies besides "My Pillow."
Some say Tucker will reach more people on Twitter ... and he clearly is ... but these 10-minute monologues don't have the same bite or depth or variety as an hour-long show. So I think they have succeeded in keeping he (and his large staff) from doing a lot of the segments they don't want to see.
Thanks for your comments, Doug.
He did just release a long form interview with Andrew Tate. I think there will be more to come.
It’s called “pal review.”
I learned about this when I was looking into the global warming issue... very common there, too.
You bet your booties it is and has been for the last 30 years. Everything "medical" related is RIGGED to the gills otherwise the entire empire of fake drugs and fake doctors would blow up .
Former academic here. I fully acknowledge that there are major issues with peer review. However, there is an important and legitimate reason for authors to suggest reviewers to *exclude* - if a competing scientist is selected as your peer reviewer and they are not fully ethical, they can inappropriately stonewall the review process to allow time for their work to be published first, or they can outright steal your work. The “glory” in academic research goes to who published the discovery first, not to who published best. They often can get away with it because of the anonymity of the process. It happened to me, it happened to my research mentor, and it happened to good friends of mine. You submit a rationale for excluding reviewers, which editors can choose to ignore.
The suggestions for including reviewers is often because editors cover a large swath of research and are often unlikely to know suitable people who can accurately and fairly judge the paper, so you give them suggested names to speed up the process. This one is obviously more easily abused by picking friends.
The editor is supposed to have the final say and can ignore your suggestions, but when they have dozens of papers or more to process daily, corners are inevitably going to be cut.
Peer review works just like "Consensus," sames in 2023:
https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/94edfe13-ab2a-4923-b7da-a0430f51c807_1366x557.png
The ability to suggest reviewers is a part of standard peer review process at almost every journal. While there are pros and cons, in itself this is not news. The authors are not told by the editors whether their suggestions were ultimately used. A collusion with the editors would be a sign of corruption, but the message cited here doesn't prove it.
Anyone familiar with climate science knew this already. Open source journals with full data disclosure are a far better model for science publishing.
Wow. Nothing drives the point home like a screen cap...
Nothing to see here... (sarc)
"A jury of one's peers..."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_of_one%27s_peers