Journals must stop blocking critical comments

The author may be interested to hear about the website PubPeer, which provides a venue for post-publication peer review of the kind he refers to: https://pubpeer.com/ It's quite widely used by scientists, but perhaps not so familiar to those in social sciences.

My own experience of seeking an important correction. In 2015 was published the "Rising-falling mercury pollution causing the rising-falling IQ of the Lynn-Flynn effect, as predicted by the antiinnatia theory of autism and IQ" (1), in the peer-reviewed PsycInfo-indexed Personality and Individual Differences. Three years later was published "Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused", by Bernt Bratsberg and Ole Rogeberg, in the "prestigious" PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) (2). Their paper failed to mention that there had been published that other paper three years earlier which had specified the exact "environmental factor" (which the unfaulted autism theory had correctly predicted against all expert assumptions). I wrote a commentary simply pointing this out. The editor claimed it was not an important enough point to merit mentioning. Really? In that case one has to wonder why was B&R's paper worth publishing when it failed to discover anything new and instead just tended to hide the fact of existence the mercury pollution paper. What's the point of slaving away at getting a paper published in a peer-reviewed PsycInfo-indexed journal when these other authors are given licence to just pretend it hasn't existed anyway? 1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273789709_Rising-falling_mercury_pollution_causing_the_rising-falling_IQ_of_the_Lynn-Flynn_effect_as_predicted_by_the_antiinnatia_theory_of_autism_and_IQ 2. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6674

Science is becoming a religion rather than the pursuit of objective truth through triangulation and falsification...