I am struck by the (seemingly) mass misunderstanding of the peer review process. Whenever a troll or even just an apologist wanders through here and the idea of peer review comes up, they invariably have it all mixed up.
Their idea of peer review is that all the scientists are in cahoots with one another so they "of course" agree with each other's papers and theses.
In my experience, the peer review process is brutal and honest; sometimes making enemies of people who should be friends. I have been at several thesis defenses, one of which broke out into a screaming match. I also used to teach a module called "The Duesberg Phenomenon" which centers around a virologist named Peter Duesberg who published his ideas that AIDS is not caused by HIV. It was in the mid 1990's and was answered by a rebuttal from a scientist named Blattner. Their feud went on for months, even years....
It is as though the religious folks know that they are engaged in large scale mass fraud and wink at one another in their conspiracy so they figure that scientists are doing the same thing.
Allow me to say something very clearly. If I could prove Darwin wrong this moment, i would not hesitate to write, publish, and defend my stance. The thing is, Darwin was / is right about descent with modification. I have no allegiance to him. I draw no reward for agreeing with him.
I'd like to hear everyone's take on the peer review process and how it works.