Yes, correct Open access research is peer-reviewed however there is a financial incentive to publish a paper and also publication is the editor's decision. Meaning, that even if reviewers suggested that the paper is not fit for publication in their opinion, the paper can still get published if the editor think it is worth it.
The above applies to both open access and traditional journal.
There is immense pressure in academics and scholars to publish to get their next grant and secure their job or career progression.
However, as you suggested i stopped having faith in the traditional journals.
My issue with this paper is the in vitro methodology. Dandelion is available for consumption so they could eailyt do a pilot study on humans.
Yes, correct Open access research is peer-reviewed however there is a financial incentive to publish a paper and also publication is the editor's decision. Meaning, that even if reviewers suggested that the paper is not fit for publication in their opinion, the paper can still get published if the editor think it is worth it.
The above applies to both open access and traditional journal.
There is immense pressure in academics and scholars to publish to get their next grant and secure their job or career progression.
However, as you suggested i stopped having faith in the traditional journals.
My issue with this paper is the in vitro methodology. Dandelion is available for consumption so they could eailyt do a pilot study on humans.
Methodologies > social consensus (ie peer review)
$$$$$$$$
You're correct, of course.
But they can't risk their cars blowing up.
As long as you say the magic words -- "something, something, vax good" -- even if the text and data don't support that, they leave you alone.
By the same token, as long as you do your study in vitro rather than in vivo, they kind of leave you alone.
Dandelion tea is delicious! It's good, just because.
From that point of view I agree with you.
I tried dandelion but did not fancy. Any brands you suggest?