Peer review is not even a bulwark against bad data. I've seen many papers with spurious conclusions. Where peer review is critical is the first pass filter. I

Peer review is not even a bulwark against bad data. I've seen many papers with spurious conclusions. Where peer review is critical is the first pass filter. I can't read all the literature, so I need some editorial filter in place. I may reject the findings in a peer-reviewed paper (or even worse, find the results uninteresting), but helping to decide what to read is critical. For those in the business, all papers get integrated into our mental models for how things work, and data that is a bit odd simply means we need to put more focus there. That said, an issue is present when a field systematically produces bad papers - how do you navigate that?!