Regarding: the "NO ONE" peer reviews (as the title of the article claims) and "creeping normalcy" as was apparently implied. I can think of numerous counter-examples in the software industry to what is stated about lack of review. For instance:

1. A company in the banking industry subjects every step of software development process to code review, plus security code review, and Q/A testing every time they release code for production.

So.. Shannon Rose wasn't talking about the banking industry or business code review. The author was talking about scientific systems. Ok.

2. Let's take a bioinformatic knowledge-base company. The code used to search and extract information from the knowledge base, though proprietary, is subject to code review and Q/A testing. In addition the knowledge base itself vigorously Q/A tested, peer reviewed and signed off before release.

But Shannon Rose wasn't talking about bioinformatics? Really? Ok....

3. Let's take a civil engineering company particularly, one who has been in the nuclear engineering industry (such as it has been). Structural engineering code used in nuclear power plants is constantly verified, running known engineering cases against the code base and rigorously checking the result, footnoting and explaining every detailed difference down to the nth decimal place.

But Shannon Rose wasn't talking about actual critical engineering code ... But wait. There's more.

The entire engineering software code base was open-source as are many scientific software projects. Further more, it was looked at in detail by physicists, engineers, and software engineers from within the company who weren't even working on the project. The code base was thus open to examination by engineers and scientists who use it as well as outsiders.

But, Shannon Rose wasn't talking about the nuclear engineering industry. No. This article concerns a particular set of useful but not life-threatening scientific finding that the author disagrees with - and where there are people who oppose learning and understanding what the truth is and what it means. Maybe that idea violate some persons understanding of some biblical text somewhere because somehow humans happen to be responsible mucking up a whole planet.

So, when that biblical text was written, who did peer review on that text? The interpretation?

The fact is, I can think of countless examples where people who work on scientific software, who after all believe that they are responsible for what they do, because maybe they're just that way, take extra precaution to verify their results and subject their work to review. (Because, after all, we don't want another Three Mile Island, or Y2K).

How many examples do I have to cite where there are responsible people before we can reject the idea that "no one" does peer review of any scientific software?

A footnote: the author also wrote that they think the Obama administration is "bringing martial law to the U.S." And why is this? Because the Bush administration was too incompetent to put heinous criminals on trial, we won't get to convict them.

And somehow this mistake is Obama's fault. If McCain had won it would presumably be his fault instead. Because one president couldn't be responsible enough to begin with. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was actually put under military tribunal and allegedly "confessed." Who did peer review on the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Answer: No one. There was a document written up. No one signed it.

No. This article is not about science, or software. It claims instead there is this general widespread failure by people who work and review in scientific software. That claim is irresponsible on its own. It's follow-up conclusion that this "completely irresponsible" software review can be regulated by so-called "responsible" politicians (such as those who brought us Abu Ghraib, torture, and the possible untriability of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) can "clean up" peer review is beyond hogwash.

Peer review certainly is an issue and always requires addressing. But I think this author should take their overactive bile somewhere else.
</rant>