A journal could follow a set of statistical standards that could be examined and approved by experts outside of its narrow field. I don't claim that paper revi

A journal could follow a set of statistical standards that could be examined and approved by experts outside of its narrow field. I don't claim that paper reviews have to be or can be perfect - only that they could be held to a better standard than they are now. We see plenty of avenues for publishing to a worse standard (self-publishing on an internet aggregator, for example). Let's see some avenues for a better standard. Why isn't this a science in itself? We could trial some different standards and statistically compare them. [It was not my claim that scientific papers must be understandable by laypeople, although I think this is an ideal case. If not, it should at least be understandable by people in an adjacent subfield - otherwise, it's just a small group of people talking amongst themselves]