I think by now it should be pretty obvious what peer review is and isn't. I see it as a low bar to filter out some (yet not all) obvious bullshit. Wakefield's

I think by now it should be pretty obvious what peer review is and isn't. I see it as a low bar to filter out some (yet not all) obvious bullshit. Wakefield's "Vaccines cause Autism" study was peer reviewed. All the fancy powerposing/social priming/etc. studies that created the psychology replication crisis were peer reviewed. Bem's precognition research was peer reviewed. As soon as you go into empirical research there are things that peer reviewers just can't check, e.g. whether the study author created the hypothesis before or after collecting the data. There's also things that could be checked, but usually aren't, like pretty much most of the software created for research.