It's not incredible at all; it's reasonable. Peer review should be comprehensive enough to notice if, for example, there are serious numerical errors or if the

It's not incredible at all; it's reasonable. Peer review should be comprehensive enough to notice if, for example, there are serious numerical errors or if the conclusions can't be drawn from the figures. That some people don't seem to even bother reading the papers is disgraceful. People have a right to know which platforms are farcical and I think the people you cited have provided a public service.