For peer review, replication, and objectivity to make any headway on the continuum, for science to find the right answers to anything, there have to be wrong - or at least unlikely - answers.

I worry that we're learning the wrong lesson and that is to overhaul the peer-review process. In the end, science and scientific publication hinges on the integrity of practitioners and the fact that it's a communal activity. It was just a matter of time before this was found out.

A mathematician is an individual who calls himself a 'physicist' and does 'physics' and physical experiments with abstract concepts.

Reevaluate your abilities each time when you have been offered to review an article. And say no thanks if the topic doesn’t belong to the field of your expertise.

There are no right answers to wrong questions.

There wasn't any evidence that (the peer review team) was split in any way.