Peer review’s fundamental flaw is that science only works through replication and peer review tries to sidestep that as a cost saving measure. It doesn’t mean t

Peer review’s fundamental flaw is that science only works through replication and peer review tries to sidestep that as a cost saving measure. It doesn’t mean there’s no value - having peers review your work can be valuable. But as any professional coder can tell you, a code review is an extremely low quality signal that can only catch obvious bugs, typos, and stylistic/basic rule conformance issues. It can’t explain why you made various design decisions and whether those were any good to begin with. I think its current role as gatekeeper is probably overall more harmful than helpful as it lends legitimacy it doesn’t have a right to (ie this paper is right) but I don’t have a better suggestion other than independent replication. Maybe more separation between who designs, conducts and analyses experiments with the analysis people being rewarded if there’s no result while the design and experiment people being paid if there is to set up a feedback loop?