cyberbunga

What I'm going to say is tangential to the article's main issue (scientific fraud), but I take issue with the "essential" in the headline. Not only there was science going on without peer review, there are some very proeminent examples of it, too. None of Einstein's annus mirabilis were peer reviewed. Einstein didn't care much for peer review either. Later on, when Physical Review tried to peer review one of his papers with Rosen, he chose to submit the paper elsewhere.

More about it in: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/5885/how-did-the-pub...

In an observational, case-control study, researchers assessed loneliness in children with the question “Have you ever felt lonely for more than 6 months before the age of 12”

Doesn't sound like they "assessed loneliness in children". I thought this would be one of those longitudinal studies where subjects are given a survey while young and then the researchers come back to check on them later in life.

Also, no links to any version of the paper. What a pain.