I just don't really think peer review is that important... it doesn't need to be more thorough, you don't need people to double check every little thing or try

I just don't really think peer review is that important... it doesn't need to be more thorough, you don't need people to double check every little thing or try to replicate things before publication. Good scientists are already skeptical, and will remain so about publications no matter how much peer review it goes through. In the past, it mostly helped journals weed out papers that weren't interesting, to save print costs. Nowadays, as a scientist, I'd rather everything just get posted quickly on preprint servers, and make my own judgement. Reviewers won't ever look deeply, but you can bet another scientist planning several years of work based on someone else's paper will look really deeply. IMO when I've had papers not published because of bad reviews, it was usually from competitors that were bitter about me beating them to something important, or using a different approach than they would... or inappropriate reviewers that weren't qualified to understand the paper. I don't think more aggressive gatekeeping by peers would do anyone any good, and should probably just be eliminated entirely. Having the code is important because the code is part of the methods. Without the code, the work isn't always even possible to reproduce.