> I disagree that people overlook that fact. Humans are certainly not infallible, and that's why peer review is an important part of the process for confirming

> I disagree that people overlook that fact. Humans are certainly not infallible, and that's why peer review is an important part of the process for confirming scientific discoveries and claims. Peer review compares to the literature and does some minor arithmetic checks. It rarely redoes the statistics, let alone verify that the measurements were real. That's part of why peer review is almost useless in detecting fraud. It has other failings as well. It is better than nothing.