It's a shame that by self publishing this, the work has not had any kind of peer review. As a relative layman, I have no idea how much I can trust the method or conclusions presented.
That's true to a point, but replicability really is the cornerstone of science. A replicable result, even if it's ridiculously implausible, at least needs to be properly investigated to see where the mistake lies. There's something there that is investigable (is that a word?). Conversely you can have all the controls and peer review you like, but if the result isn't replicable it's garbage. Just nicely presented, plausible garbage which frankly is the most insidious and dangerous kind.
There have been some interesting studies into replicating results from published research that have found that only a very small fraction of peer reviewed papers present actually replicable results. That's shocking.
How often are research/litrature reviews peer reviewed? All the references are there, you can check them youself with little effort. There are no results that need to be replicated. To verify no bias exists in the presentation of the existing research, you'd basically have to reproduce the entire output of this paper (i.e. go and find and report on every single study out there related to fasting to ensure the results have been fairly presented). That's not so much a review as a replication of the research and I cannot see how a journal would have the resources to do that. What benefits would peer review give in this case?
Yeah I also don't know why this is the case because it would be more credible and prestigious. His reason was:
First, the idea was publication in a scientific magazine. For many reasons, taking time from becoming a good clinician being the most important, but far from single one, I eventually decided not to go that route.
It was his MD thesis, apparently. I think there is some validity in the fact that his university awarded him his medical doctorate based on the quality and content in the work.
