As an academic scientist that does peer review- I would never consider redoing math unless the conclusion seemed suspicious. Peer reviewers don’t have a lot of

As an academic scientist that does peer review- I would never consider redoing math unless the conclusion seemed suspicious. Peer reviewers don’t have a lot of time and need to assume good faith and careful basic competency from the authors. We spend realistically about an hour to review a study that might have taken a whole team of authors half a decade. Mostly we are looking to confirm that the work is presented clearly, and that the evidence is sufficient to support the conclusions. Peer review is little more than proofreading from an unbiased 3rd party.