>>512702645 (OP)Next time, give a source that's not youtube, anon. anything that's not arxiv or a DOI just makes you look like a retard.
>peer reviewedAaaaand that's the part where we all throw back our heads in laughter.
Having worked in what passes of for a "world-leading scientific institute" before, let me put this as simple as possible:
>peer review has nothing to do with whether a claim is true, or even testable. It's supposed to be about whether the claim made can be proven with the data provided through the methodology given, but no one checks if that data is legit or if the methodology makes sense. And sadly, more often than not, it's just a question of "does the reviewer like the author?".>no major scientific journal does peer review anymore. They have their own, hired reviewers, and while some less legit journals attempt to pass them off as peer reviewers, they're generally bound to follow instructions from the journal's leadership.The time of actual peer review, where every interesting claim would lead to dozens of comment being published in numerous journals, is long past. Open peer review models, where people can comment online, are being tested every now and then, but they're not exactly popular. Too many people point out the (often blatantly obvious) errors in papers that way, leading authors to prefer classical journals instead.
