Are you still going on about peer review?All you have offered to date is a mixture of articles that you did not understand and misinterpreted. eaily debunkable sources, and the rare fringe article of dubious veracity.
And this last article is from a bit of a questionable source. Due to economics open access journals are less reliable than regular peer reviewed journals. The peer review of your article is a bit dubious to say the least.
Other than all the issues I have clearly outlined previously on the parallel Creation/evolution Forum:
Here are further papers discussing more issues:
"Do we need an alternative to peer-reviewed journals?
The problems with peer review and scientific publishing have been a topic for …
by Jonathan M. Gitlin - July 19 2011, 0:29am -950
"Problems with peer review"
BMJ2010;340doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c1409 (Published 15 March 2010)
Cite this as:BMJ2010;340:c1409
From the New York Times:
The Doctor's World
"For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap "
By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, M.D.
Published: May 2, 2006
For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap
And finally, from InfoToday
“Could Peer review be Wrong” by Robin Peek
Vol. 20 No. 4 — April 2003
Including a mention of Cochrane Review, about which I quote:
“In January, Cochrane published "Editorial Peer-Review for Improving the Quality of Reports of Biomedical Studies." According to the organization, this study was conducted because "the knowledgebase of peer review has traditionally lagged far behind its acceptability and use as a quality-assessment tool."
Cochrane claims that assumptions about the use of peer review for objective decision making have "rarely been tested." In addition, it says that the need to "prioritize information sources is crucial since there are over 20,000 biomedical journals published globally."
Obviously, peer review requires peer review
So it is obviously not the panacea for every ill in science publishing
But it means a heck of a lot to the layperson...