{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"World leading higher education information and services","provider_url":"https:\/\/world.edu","author_name":"Kevin","author_url":"https:\/\/world.edu\/author\/kevin\/","title":"Scientific peer review: an ineffective and unworthy institution - World leading higher education information and services","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"C1Y7D6MyZf\"><a href=\"https:\/\/world.edu\/scientific-peer-review-ineffective-unworthy-institution\/\">Scientific peer review: an ineffective and unworthy institution<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/world.edu\/scientific-peer-review-ineffective-unworthy-institution\/embed\/#?secret=C1Y7D6MyZf\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;Scientific peer review: an ineffective and unworthy institution&#8221; &#8212; World leading higher education information and services\" data-secret=\"C1Y7D6MyZf\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/New-Peer-Review.jpg","thumbnail_width":680,"thumbnail_height":462,"description":"Given the entirely appropriate degree of respect that science has for data, the ongoing discussion of peer review is often surprisingly data-free and underlain by the implicit assumption that peer review \u2013 although in need of improvement \u2013 is indispensable. The thing is, the peer review of scientific reports is not only without documented value [&hellip;]"}