Whenever I mention my skepticism of the peer review mechanism, someone is always quick to claim how important and special it is, and that I should have faith in it.
Here, they reject a paper and refuse even to peer review it. They refuse to explain why they feel it unacceptable. It comes from a scientist who has already published, and in the relevant fields.
If they'll do this because of the slight risk of someone making fun of it, what will they do when the paper is politically inconvenient?
"They refuse to explain why they feel it unacceptable."
I read the paper. It's unacceptable because it's LITERALLY a "here are some things we Googled, and there weren't any time travelers" with a bibliography attached: there's no detailed explanation of experimental procedure, no detailed data. It's roughly equivalent to sending a middle-school book report to a literary journal.
This is precisely one of the reasons The Winnower (where it was published) was founded. Peer review is becoming increasingly shown to be faulty at identifying mistakes. It is better at holding back controversial or unorthodox ideas, which are what ultimately drive science forward!
Here, they reject a paper and refuse even to peer review it. They refuse to explain why they feel it unacceptable. It comes from a scientist who has already published, and in the relevant fields.
If they'll do this because of the slight risk of someone making fun of it, what will they do when the paper is politically inconvenient?