On one hand, this is because it's such a safe thing to cause damage to the image of another fellow scientist that happens to dare looking at something new or in

On one hand, this is because it's such a safe thing to cause damage to the image of another fellow scientist that happens to dare looking at something new or in a new way. (Crab mentality, perhaps?) If this effect would be as costly to the individual attacker as it is for the collective, we would probably "move fast and break things" more. On the other hand, we already have way too many non peer-reviewed papers as it is, and those papers get cited by other papers, and so on. Not enough action to ensure quality. In such case, what the critiques with good intentions for the world but with limited time and attention are to do but go after the most audacious claims in their field?