Exactly. Reviewers expected to be experts in a field can only check claims against their own knowledge. Their role should be recognized as limited to that and

Exactly. Reviewers expected to be experts in a field can only check claims against their own knowledge. Their role should be recognized as limited to that and not to have some monopole on the "real truth". Fear of error could make them overly protective if not paranoid. In my sense, scholar communication means should be open but with mechanism to weed oud obvious crap and mechanism for efficient self correction.