> That debunked theory about vaccines causing autism comes from a peer-reviewed paper in one of the most prestigious journals in the world, and it stayed there for twelve years before it was retracted. How many kids haven’t gotten their shots because one rotten paper made it through peer review and got stamped with the scientific seal of approval?
The point is not to prevent it from getting out there in the first place — that is already possible, you can just upload a PDF to some website. Doing that for a paper arguing 1+1=3 wouldn't be any more accepted if peer review's role would be limited.
> That debunked theory about vaccines causing autism comes from a peer-reviewed paper in one of the most prestigious journals in the world, and it stayed there for twelve years before it was retracted. How many kids haven’t gotten their shots because one rotten paper made it through peer review and got stamped with the scientific seal of approval?
The point is not to prevent it from getting out there in the first place — that is already possible, you can just upload a PDF to some website. Doing that for a paper arguing 1+1=3 wouldn't be any more accepted if peer review's role would be limited.