From the article: "How am I supposed to judge the correctness of an article if I can’t see the entire process?" If you can't, then don't. When software develope

From the article: "How am I supposed to judge the correctness of an article if I can’t see the entire process?" If you can't, then don't. When software developers do code reviews, obscurity of the changes made is sufficient to deny a pull request from being merged. If a peer reviewer can't follow a scientific paper then they shouldn't be rubber stamping it. I'd say it's the responsibility of the paper's authors to ensure it has enough information in it to determine its validity. Reviewers shouldn't be afraid to send back papers that don't.