And would this be the appropriate course of action -ie judging the author, not the paper? Can a paid hack not also stumble upon a genuine result on occasion, and if the model and calculations are documented, can they not be judged per se?

In principle it is possible, but the forensic reconstruction required to validate that the paid liar is, for once, not lying for money would be such an imposition upon the reviewer's (unpaid) time as to render it practically infeasible under the current scope of the peer review process.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.