[StressedDev]

Peer review is not a magic thing which can detect all mistakes and prevent all fraud. The biggest problem with peer review is people assume it means published research is correct. I do not think that peer review can do that. I think peer review at best gives good feedback to honest researchers and catches some mistakes.

Here are my reasons why I think peer review will not reach a higher standard.

1) Peer review is hard work and probably tedious. In order to do a really good job, someone would have to spend tens or hundreds of hours reviewing a paper. The best reviewers would actually replicate the research. This probably will not happen often.

2) Peer review is not rewarded. No one is going to get tenure for being an excellent reviewer.

3) Good reviewers may even be punished. Unfortunately, many humans do not like critical feedback and hate having their work invalidated. Some of these people take revenge, and "shoot the messenger".

I think the solution is to stop thinking something is correct because it is published in a peer reviewed journal. Instead, people need to recognize that while the scientific process may eventually get the right result, it often makes mistakes, and is not perfect.