Quote:I didn't say that. Peer review is more than a grammar check. It's also a check on the basics and to determine if the results are logical based on the knowledge of the reviewer. The peer reviewer might ask for a deeper explanation on some parts. As I said before, the one thing a peer reviewer is most likely to criticize is lack of references to previous works in the field, especially papers authored by the reviewer.


A peer reviewer only sees the paper, not the data or computer code behind the paper. The assumption is that the author was diligent in his data reduction techniques, or in the case of a computer model that the programming was correct. If the results agree with the opinions of the reviewer then the reviewer won't question the methods.
This leads to confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is a big problem in a field like <del>Global Warming</del> Climate Change. Results that agree with the prevailing dogma are not questioned, results that disagree are gone over with a fine tooth comb. Almost everyone in the field chose that branch of science in order to 'save the planet.' You don't join the priesthood if you don't believe in God to begin with.

It's been a couple years since I've read a paper from a peer reviewed journal... but from my recollection the methodology, data, equations used, thesis, and procedures are all provided in order for others in the community to recreate and verify or refute the paper. Over time, because all the data and equations are provided, the thesis is either validated or other studies are conducted to derive a more accurate model.


Again, you may not have said peer review is merely a grammar check, verbatim. But that is what you are implying, which again seems silly or that you assign far too little to a process that has created many advances in all levels of academia and science.

---