Peer Reviewing in Experimental Studies: A False Narrative Damaging Research

Peer Reviewing, the mechanism at the base of scientific publications, is actually a lie, a false narrative for the majority of published experimental studies. Behind such false narrative, that damages empirical research in many fields, hides in plain sight the exercise of academic power, taking the form of fiefdoms building, and the unjustified support for the undeserving business of scientific publishing. To support our case, we report three recent cases of publication based on faked experimental data involving professors at Harvard University, Stanford University, and Johns Hopkins. The hope is that this study could become a wake up call for researchers and the public opinion to better control how research fundings are spent and to promote a change in how experimental research is managed in academia. Also one can only hope that investigative journalists pick up this call and start a press coverage of the academic power phenomena, of who are the main gainers/leaders supporting the phenomena, and of the damages it produces to the advancement of science. We therefore kindly ask any interested reader to manifest their support for this study by publicly endorsing and sharing it. The link to the full letter can be found at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4621491