The peer review process is halfway between "accept on good faith" and "reproduce the results". And it's not a flawless compromise. As a peer reviewer, I check t

The peer review process is halfway between "accept on good faith" and "reproduce the results". And it's not a flawless compromise. As a peer reviewer, I check that an incoming paper is sane, says something new, and doesn't have obvious holes. But I don't reproduce the original experiment unless it's very quick. Peer review is entirely unpaid and uncredited, so I can't justify taking time from my own research. Ideally, every research team would have a remote collaborator that checks their results and gets credit for doing so (even if the answer is no!). But right now there is nothing to incentivize that kind of rigor.