[xtracto]

No, you are wrong and you don't know how peer reviewing works.

Reputable journals and other publication outlets use something called "Double Blind peer review" precisely to prevent that the reputation of a researcher could skew the peer review process.

If you want to review and cast a judgement for the points presented in the article, you should do it only by refuting or confirming the content of the text itself. Not because it was written by Einstein or Donald Trump.

[chromatin]

> Reputable journals and other publication outlets use something called "Double Blind peer review" precisely to prevent that the reputation of a researcher could skew the peer review process.

Double blind peer review is INCREDIBLY UNCOMMON among high impact biomedical journals

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Some journals and conferences use double blinding. Not all do. In some, the reviewers can see the names of the authors. In others, the authors can propose reviewers, or ask the someone is excluded from review. Journals and conferences may change their rules from one year to the next.

Anyway the blinding, when it exists, is as much to protect the reviewers from retribution by asshole authors, as it is to avoid biasing the reviewers by the reputation of the authors.

[Bud]

First, I do know how peer review works.

Second, you're missing the key difference, here: peer review is for review and evaluation within the community of qualified scientists.

What I'm talking about is something else: the ability of the reasonably well-informed public to evaluate claims, even though they lack domain expertise.