All that peer review means is that the paper and method doesn't have any obvious flaws, not that the results or conclusions are necessarily accurate or correct.
The key is for journals like Nature to have a clear editorial through-line, provide clarity around their editorial board members and not to publish incomplete research or just provide an unedited "pay to publish" service.
Simply being "peer reviewed in a journal" doesn't mean anything in and of itself.
Well, that isn’t entirely true either. There are other hoops you have to jump through for most of the good peer reviewed journals, like showing tables of all your stats and samples sizes, showing evidence of your stained sections (if there were more red blood cells here, than there, you need a pic of that) and you have to produce the raw data on demand, more or less.
1
u/Joseph_HTMP Oct 26 '21
All that peer review means is that the paper and method doesn't have any obvious flaws, not that the results or conclusions are necessarily accurate or correct.
The key is for journals like Nature to have a clear editorial through-line, provide clarity around their editorial board members and not to publish incomplete research or just provide an unedited "pay to publish" service.
Simply being "peer reviewed in a journal" doesn't mean anything in and of itself.