Regarding 1-3, as I mentioned, the review process doesn't actually get into the validity of claims. Just sees if you've ticked a list of checkboxes.
Regarding 4, it sounds like this should have been caught.
That said, there are reviewers who are hardcore and care deeply about their review. But it's not the rule by any means and especially not outside of hard sciences (math, physics etc).
Academics sell "peer review" as the ultimate checks and balance on prohibiting junk science from entering the field.
I completely agree that actual peer review is basically spell check.
Peers in the medical profession began calling out this study almost immediately, why weren't they on the journal "peer review"? And we're back to spell checking.
Regarding 1-3, as I mentioned, the review process doesn't actually get into the validity of claims. Just sees if you've ticked a list of checkboxes.
Regarding 4, it sounds like this should have been caught.
That said, there are reviewers who are hardcore and care deeply about their review. But it's not the rule by any means and especially not outside of hard sciences (math, physics etc).
I'm not disagreeing with you.
Academics sell "peer review" as the ultimate checks and balance on prohibiting junk science from entering the field.
I completely agree that actual peer review is basically spell check.
Peers in the medical profession began calling out this study almost immediately, why weren't they on the journal "peer review"? And we're back to spell checking.