Here& #39;s your periodic reminder that peer review isn& #39;t intellectual magic.

It& #39;s 1 editor and 1 colleague reading your paper and checking for:

relevance
clear objectives
good methodology
properly reported results
coherent discussion
references to relevant papers
readability

Peer review is a quality filter, not an arbiter of truth. You could perform a brilliant experiment with ground-breaking results, but if you write a bad paper, it will be rejected. You could also fake an experiment, make up results, write a brilliant paper, and get it published.

I& #39;m not implying either happens a lot, though it does happen. The point is, just because a result appears in a peer-reviewed journal, that doesn& #39;t mean it& #39;s sprinkled with the magic fairy dust of "truth." It means it& #39;s a well-written paper that the editor thinks is relevant.

Even if we assumed that fraud or mistakes never happen (which is false), peer review doesn& #39;t guarantee that a model or a result is good. Think about it. If that WERE the case, nothing in science would ever be overturned, which is clearly not the case.

End of PSA.