We'll likely have to agree to disagree so this discussion doesn't devolve precipitously. The Nobel price, (no misspelling), is little more than an Oscar. It's a popularity contest. Let's not conflate the peer review process with the Nobel Prize and certainly not with anything published in the PRC. That's a kettle of fish I'd rather not sample.
From the mid-'80s through the mid-'90s I was fortunate to consult regularly at Caltech. I knew most of the faculty and while some may have been a bit odd I never knew of anyone as a fraud. As you may know, Feynman would nuke anyone he even suspected as a pretender. He was the gregarious bongo playing assassin.
I used to do all nighters in Lee Hood's lab with a friend of mine who was one of his 'researchers'. Read slave attempting to complete their PhD. All graduate work is slavery with a more respectable patina but that's the US system. It doesn't matter if you're a plumber or a physicist, it's not wonderful to be mediocre. Those that are, can become quite bitter. The US system rewards excellence and destroys mediocrity.
Like European and US democracy, Western science is not a game for the weak. It's not a game for the semi-intelligent pretending to understand their profession. It's also not fair and sometimes dishonest. It's up to us to be smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Just my opinion but you appear to be too smart to waste your time trying to tear down a system that will outlast both of us. I've found it's much better to understand the system, tweak it if you can and take every morally and socially responsible advantage available. If you really care about the peer review system, work within that system to improve it.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
