Respectfully, if you've published papers you should understand how the peer-review process works. The fact that there are dishonest interlocutors in any enterprise should not be a surprise to anyone. Science, as a methodological approach to understanding our natural world, is resilient to misinformation and disinformation in a way few other processes are. The fact that people publish bad research which is rejected by the peer-review process is not an excuse to distrust science on political, or any other, motives.
SyntheticSweetener t1_j0diehw wrote
Reply to comment by thekevlarboxers in A deluge of fake articles threatens research on human genes -- Review: Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills by spontaneous_igloo
Respectfully, if you've published papers you should understand how the peer-review process works. The fact that there are dishonest interlocutors in any enterprise should not be a surprise to anyone. Science, as a methodological approach to understanding our natural world, is resilient to misinformation and disinformation in a way few other processes are. The fact that people publish bad research which is rejected by the peer-review process is not an excuse to distrust science on political, or any other, motives.