The "peer review" files of @MartineWonner's HCQ paper published with a predatory journal is finally published. Here is how serious the review process was, I promise you will laugh https://twitter.com/fxcoudert/status/1285217959242276867

First reviewer is Malangori Parande, not exactly an world-renowned expert, and not a specialist in virology or epidemiology. The ENTIRE review is two sentences long:
“Permission of ethics committee.
Sample size to be mentioned in methodology.”

Second reviewer is Olga Rukhmakova, whose papers in international journals have totalled 5 citations altogether. Her ResearchGate profile lists her as an expert on Ointments and Essential Oils. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Olga_Rukhmakova

The entire review, this time, is 4 vague sentences. This is purely pretend peer-review, it's like a game children play, pretending to be researchers and using all the right words, but not understanding what they mean.

The two editors were clearly amazed by the quality of the work: “Excellent research article” & “The manuscript is challenge for this time”.

With the latter I can agree: bad science related to a current pandemic published in shady journals is a challenge for our time.

The peer review files are here, if you're interested: http://sdiarticle4.com/review-history/59198

poke @MicrobiomDigest @RetractionWatch

@MartineWonner, co-author of this paper in a predatory journal with a fake review process, is a French MP in the same parliamentary group as @VillaniCedric, a Fields Medal laureate, who said the group would make decisions based on science.

The only author affiliated with a researcher institution is Pierre Levy. And his institute has published a statement condemning the publication in a predatory journal, and saying the legal status of the study should be verified. https://twitter.com/nael_kl/status/1294192238688456705