> And how do you even guarantee this, 'accurate' and 'unbiased'? Any form of peer review will always have a slant, no matter how 'objective' it is intended to b

> And how do you even guarantee this, 'accurate' and 'unbiased'? Any form of peer review will always have a slant, no matter how 'objective' it is intended to be. Peer review of peer review. Instead of a couple of scientists looking at it, the peer-review process should be entirely open. So other people can scrutinize it.