Peer reviews are not really reliable because most of the time there is "politics" going on. Before a peer( person in the same field) conducted a peer review he/she will first ask. Who is it from? Who recommended it? Of course this is if he/she doesn't have an idea on who would he/she reviewing for. There is also the case of 'professional envy' in which the peer knew that the paper has 'juice' but failed it. Last one for me is bias, "the earth will end in 2050" although convinced by the data most peers wouldn't conduct a peer review about it. Why? Because no one wants to hear bad news, it's boring and most of the time unprofitable.
To think about it there is a strong connection between peer review and your last post confirmation bias. But hell I'm to tired to think about it. Nyahaha. Anyways, thank you very much mistress for always posting something good.
Do you have any idea what could replace peer reviewing? Doing a peer review wrong on purpose can also lead into very bad reputation of the peer reviewer, if there are other peer reviews done.
Sir @apsu. I mentioned "most of the time" not 'all the time'. Like you I also believed that doing a peer review wrong in purpose can damage the peer reviewer.
I didn't only focus on that and didn't mean all the time. But do you have any good ideas what could replace the peer reviewing?
Sadly, NONE. I think sir @apsu that peer reviewing is still the best. Although there are many issues like the bias and trust. I couldn't deny that in this time no other method can replace peer reviewing.
Yeah, peer review is not 100% reliable. It's a useful tool that can fail.