[ethanbond]

> You're assuming that (a) reviewers not finding any methodology flaws in the paper means there are none, and (b) no flaws in the paper means no flaws in the work

No, you are assuming that with your flawed understanding of what a journal is and what peer review does. Like this isn’t a matter of opinion. Peer review in fact and by design is not a stamp of veracity. The reason is exactly the conundrum you’ve backed into.

If someone produces apparently high-quality science that challenges a well-regarded theory, it is only under your model that paper cannot be published. Under our model (the one currently in use today), the reviewers are expected to try to find holes in the methodology and, if they can’t find them, publish the paper anyway even if they disbelieve the conclusion. That way the broader scientific community can attempt to blow holes in the paper, and they frequently find things the authors and the peer reviewers missed. That is not a shot against the publisher: that is how science must work because of exactly the dynamic you’ve identified.

[andrewflnr]

You're still not paying attention to what I'm saying, which is that journals are expected to catch the easy errors, not make an absolute determination of truth. I said this in my first comment on this thread.