Not as deep an article as I'd hoped, but it points to a difficult question. As reviewers of scientific papers have unprecedented power over what research gets

Not as deep an article as I'd hoped, but it points to a difficult question. As reviewers of scientific papers have unprecedented power over what research gets published, who reviews the reviewers? (A personal example - I have just spent a week constructing a counterargument to a reviewer who didn't read my paper properly. Imagine having an online discussion where your career success hangs on the response of an anonymous, disengaged flamer to a single post of yours: can you imagine how much effort you put into that post? Sadly this particular argument is pointless and serves nobody; it would be better use of my time to get on with actual research, but that's not how the system works).