On: 'Havana syndrome' likely caused by directed microwaves – US report

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I agree with everything except that the I think the paper, and other papers in general, should be judged on their merits alone. The credibility of the authors should not influence how the paper is judged.

[danielheath → omgwtfbyobbq]

There is more published every second than you can read/watch in a week, and this asymmetry is accelerating.

Credibility is one heuristic that let’s us figure out what might be worth investing time into, since your answer cannot be “everything”.

[omgwtfbyobbq → danielheath]

Definitely. Using credibility, or any other metric, to determine what to review is fine. Using credibility as part of the review itself is not something I agree with.

With respect to publishing, there is a significant volume of work, and we should be able to keep up with it long as people review as much as they publish.

[scoot_718 → omgwtfbyobbq]

If that's what you think, then enjoy reading the many thousands of papers published by shitty paper mill operations.

[matham → scoot_718]

You seem to be conflating the problem of weak or no pear review (i.e. the reason why paper-mill publications are shitty), with the problem of judging a paper by the author's name and not purely by its content (i.e. what the OP proposed).