> To be clear, I think getting through peer review is evidence that a paper is good I think this depends on how you define good. I'm sure there's some variatio

> To be clear, I think getting through peer review is evidence that a paper is good I think this depends on how you define good. I'm sure there's some variation across fields, but peer review generally seeks to establish that what is presented in the paper is plausible, logically consistent, well-presented, meaningful, and novel. That list is non-exhaustive, but correct is very hard to establish in a peer review process. In my experience, it would be rare for a reviewer to repeat calculations in a paper unless something seems fairly obviously off. As a computer scientist, it would be even more rare for a peer reviewer to examine the code written for a paper (if it is available) to check for bugs. Point being, there are a lot of reasons a paper that appears good may be completely incorrect. Although this is typically for reasons that I as a casual reader would be even less likely to distinguish than a reviewer who is particularly knowledgeable about that particular field.