There wasn't any evidence that (the peer review team) was split in any way.

There's a lot of evidence to (peer review's) downside. Even the very best journals have published rubbish they wish they'd never published at all. Peer review doesn't stop that.

The worst problem of peer reviewing is its time consuming nature.

A mathematician is an individual who calls himself a 'physicist' and does 'physics' and physical experiments with abstract concepts.

I worry that we're learning the wrong lesson and that is to overhaul the peer-review process. In the end, science and scientific publication hinges on the integrity of practitioners and the fact that it's a communal activity. It was just a matter of time before this was found out.

A mathematician is an individual who believes that prophesying that his dog will die if he deprives it of food constitutes a prediction.