And same crap journals (PlosOne, Retrovirogy) in al this neg studies
how could this crap still pass peer reviews?????
I imagine the PlosOne and Retrovirology connection is highly relevant. I believe I was told PlosOne is not peer-reviewed, but I'm not sure if that's true. Anybody know?
I suspect Retrovirology of a very incestuous review system for XMRV papers in which Wessely, Reeves and their cohorts review each others' "research". Just my nasty suspicion, though.
EDIT: I did a very quick investigation and found that PlosOne is actually nominally peer-reviewed. The question is whether the people who review and decide to publish are actually academic peers who would know the background of the topic. There is some question about whether papers on topics that are important (or newsworthy), but have a very small group of knowledgeable researchers are adequately vetted in this publication format.
Here's a blog article that discusses some of the pros and cons of open access scientific publishing. http://journalology.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-review-lite-at-plos-one.html
I overdid yesterday and don't have the mental energy to do any further research. If someone else is interested, go for it.
EDIT AGAIN: Told you I'm off today. Eric already addressed this a lot more coherently. Sorry.