you mean the same peer review system where scientists do not replicate experiments...
You mean I just imagined the approximately 100 papers that tried to test the exact same phenomenon I am currently trying to test, whose results were brought into question because newer techniques exposed a number of flaws in older techniques?
...do not read the reports or papers sent them...
They don’t even read them!?
For people who haven’t read my papers, they sure are good at finding and marking all the mistakes I make in them.
...is easily manipulated...
Easily manipulated by whom?
I haven’t had any success in manipulating it yet. Maybe you could show me how, or at least direct me to the people who could show me how.
This is probably true: all of the professors on my graduate committee are biased. One of them thinks I should focus on ecosystem-level dynamics, another one wants me to focus on food webs, another wants me to focus on behavioral interactions between organisms, and the other one is going to drill me on everything the rest of them miss.
With all these rampant biases, clearly I’m going to get a prejudicially well-rounded education in ecology and biology.
Now, just imagine how prejudicially well-rounded all of science will be when we have all these conflicting biases and prejudices running wild.
...does not confirm anything about the original report...
If it makes you feel any better, I’m currently trying to publish a paper that ultimately agrees with what the very first paper on my topic proposed.
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition: "Now just imagine..."