I wish I hadn't looked at this. Some of his arguments are interesting. But then you look at his bio, and it looks like he's motivated not simply by a desire to get to the real truth - more a desire to find a platform for certain rather questionable beliefs.The author himself looks to have some views based on the "about the author" section that I am very sceptical of
peer reviews add legitimacy to papers and validate them so that everyone else doesnt have to delve into the science and intricacies of process to have to work out if it is true or not. As guideline committees etc assume that published papers speak the truth then showing peer review is flawed adds another piece to the jigsaw of evidence the ME community is trying to build.The problem isn't peer review, the problem is people unwilling to use their brains. Wise people do not believe a conclusion simply because it was published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal. The only truth in a scientific paper (assuming no fraud) is the method and the results. Everything else is opinion.
Consider the following words from The Lancet’s editor Richard Horton:
“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding…We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”