Reproducing is a form of peer review (if you assume that a person who successfully attempts to reproduce your work is ipso facto your peer). But the fact that

Reproducing is a form of peer review (if you assume that a person who successfully attempts to reproduce your work is ipso facto your peer). But the fact that your peer (i.e. another academic who works in the same area) has read your paper and commented on it in the process of publication (i.e. customary "formal peer review") does not reflect on its reproducibility. The peer, being a human, has attentional deficits and there's probably true facts that increase the chances of the result occurring by chance which are not considered worthy of publication. Until a paper's result is reproduced, it can't be regarded as reproducible.