This article reads like nonsense - even the header is clickbait material. Claiming science needs peer review is like saying a painting isn't art until a critic

This article reads like nonsense - even the header is clickbait material. Claiming science needs peer review is like saying a painting isn't art until a critic reviews it. The results existsindependently of external validation. Peer review is not essential for science. Science can be done, whether or not it's peer-reviewed. Especially when you're dealing with scientific frontiers, where no one really can verify things - and peers don't even exist? How does peer review work then? The idea that something can be 'less scientific' just because it's not been peer-reviewed is nonsense. Unreviewed scientific work can stand on its own merit. Moreover this insistence on peer review really opens up more room for academic dogma and politics to creep into the hard sciences - not a good thing. Given the amount of scientific fraud going on, even with 'peer review', it's just not necessary for true science and it's something that should be done away with.