[StableAlkyne]

Peer review is a mixed bag. It's the best system we've come up with, but still can be hit or miss.

Depends on how much the journal is willing to push the authors (predatory journals don't give a heck, prestigious journals usually care more because they've got a rep to uphold). Reviewers can be anyone from an expert in the field, a competitor who gives you a hard time (usually they're not actively malicious though), to some random prof doing it because the editor couldn't find anyone else, or even a grad student in the lab of a prof (it's a common training exercise).

I've had articles with anywhere from 1-3 reviewers, there is no standard beyond "the editor is a basic crackpottery filter, there is an external reviewer, and a copy editor makes it fit for viewing"

[breakwaterlabs]

If the system is not catching "I am a language model", I have zero confidence in its ability to detect crackpottery, much less more insidious things like P-hacking.