Physicists have been working for decades on a "theory of everything," one that unites quantum mechanics and relativity. Apparently, they were being too modest.But for me the most important quote is the following:
Peer review isn't meant as a way to censor unpopular or radically new ideas. It is meant to ensure that publications meet minimal scientific standards (how minimal will depend on the journal), and it imparts a level of credibility to anything that passes review. As far as I can determine, this paper doesn't meet even minimal scientific standards. By giving it the credibility of having been peer-reviewed anyway, the reviewers arguably failed in their duty.I see two consequences of this failure: first of all a possible loss of credibility for open access journals (and this is not a good thing), and a possible loss of credibility for some sites (like physorg.com) that republish official press release without criticism.
In this sense it could be a good occasion for a scientific network like Field of Science to gain a lot of regular readers in the next months (and in particular I hope to write with more regularity in the future...)