I keep telling everyone here that they should pay more attention to him. 15 year-old account, moderates dozens of big subreddits, 30 million post karma (compared to "only" 300k comment karma), 28 years of Reddit gold, more trophies than I can count.

He absolutely dominates /r/science - he posts the softest social science imaginable and he always gets to the top of /r/all. All of the "studies show that orange man bad" posts are him.

He never reveals anything about his personal life; his comments are mostly just linking to studies and listing "evidence" in his /r/science posts. They always take the format:

I've linked to the primary source, the journal article, in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here's the link to the press release:

He never argues with anyone or writes anything opinionated. His "controversial" comments page brings up nothing. I bet you could read his entire comment history and not even know his gender or nationality.

He's also a /r/cryptocurrency mod and does sketchy shit like running paid AMAs and shilling shitcoins:

https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1fg9a0l/daily_crypto_discussion_september_14_2024_gmt0/ln0m3tg/?context=8

Look at his /r/science flair.

It's basically a less embarrassing

I am 95% sure your peepee is not getting hard. Go consult a doctor.

They've run studies on it and reviewers seem to basically just check to see if it's cited correctly and move on. Not actually checking what was cited

In this study reviewers caught 30% of the major flaws, in this study they caught 25%, and in this study they caught 29%. These were critical issues, like "the paper claims to be a randomized controlled trial but it isn't" and "when you look at the graphs, it's pretty clear there's no effect" and "the authors draw conclusions that are totally unsupported by the data." Reviewers mostly didn't notice.

Why don't reviewers catch basic errors and blatant fraud? One reason is that they almost never look at the data behind the papers they review, which is exactly where the errors and fraud are most likely to be. In fact, most journals don't require you to make your data public at all. You're supposed to provide them "on request," but most people don't. That's how we've ended up in sitcom-esque situations like ~20% of genetics papers having totally useless data because Excel autocorrected the names of genes into months and years

https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

For authors, very possible. Reviewers are just lazy.

zoz

No.