> As a reminder, peer review is not designed adversarially. I beg to differ. Peer review is an adversarial process. The author(s) of the paper are making state

> As a reminder, peer review is not designed adversarially. I beg to differ. Peer review is an adversarial process. The author(s) of the paper are making statements and report findings proving them by logic or/and data and analysis. The priors while reviewing a science paper is "wrong" until proven "correct". This also covers accuracy and veracity of the data and analysis. The only thing a peer review is not is assigning intent or blame. It is not the job of a reviewer to look for fraud when simple incompetence could explain it. But after reading this article I will add fraud dimension to a list of fallacies I am looking for while peer-reviewing a manuscript.