Replication is far more important than peer review. I would rather a 1/10th the number of "advances" published if I could rely on the results to be true, and ev

Replication is far more important than peer review. I would rather a 1/10th the number of "advances" published if I could rely on the results to be true, and even more importantly, robust. When I used to run a lab we used to only consider results that had been replicated in at least two unconnected labs. Everything else was just a waste of time (on average).