There is a massive incentive to publish. Inflate the value, inflate the results, and stretch out projects to multiple smaller papers, fake results to make it seem important. This is lazy and fast, and can be caught by a stricter review and scrutiny.

Papers that are properly done all the way through, but with faked data meant to push an agenda, can be disproven by counter research.

Maybe people could learn about what peer review is before posting their strong feelings about it? The purpose certainly isn't to replicate people's experiments, that happens after publication and not by referees. One of a reviewer's duties is to look at whether the study could be replicated given the included information. That is a very different thing.

Also, just because something has made it past peer review also doesn't mean it isn't controversial in the field.

This is a misunderstanding of the role of peer review. The point is not to prove that a paper is correct, the point is to ensure a minimum level of quality. You are entirely right that most reviewers cannot hope to reproduce the results presented, and very often for very good reasons. If I write 3 proposals over the course of a year to get some beam line on a neutron source, it is completely unrealistic to expect a referee to have the same level of commitment.

I think this hints at a more profound problem, which is that a lot of studies are not replicated. This is where the robustness of a scientific result comes from: anybody can make the same observation and reach the same conclusions under the same conditions. This is the real test, not whether you convinced 3 or 5 referees.

The real value of an article is not in whether it was peer reviewed (though the absence of peer review is a red flag). Instead, it is in whether different people confirmed its main results over the years that follow publication.

Although it could raise the standard of the process itself (methodology, writing) to very high levels, it restricted innovative ideas or unpopular outcomes.

I highly doubt it's a meaningful factor in public trust.

I suspect the number is low. If that's the case, they're unlikely to be more convinced by the presence of published peer review, either.

The thing is, peer review is not a stamp of quality, and never was. It is just the basic level of due diligence. The referees cannot reproduce the results most of the time for a lot of very good reasons. They are here as a sanity check, to ensure that the work avoided common pitfalls and actually makes sense.

What most people do not understand is that articles are not good because they are peer-reviewed; it’s the lack of peer review that is a red flag. Amongst reviewed articles, a lot of them will turn out to be wrong or flawed in ways that are impossible for the reviewers to find out.

"The identity of the reviewers will remain anonymous, unless they choose otherwise — as happens now."

(Also "support for public review [being] inversely correlated with reviewing experience" means inexperienced reviewers are more likely to support it. Not less.)

Or are you just for creating classes of people that just can't be critiqued in any circumstance?

This kind of sounds like, 'Wont anyone think of the grifters?!'

"Inversely correlated" means that inexperienced researchers were supportive, not:

> A measure that ... inexperienced researchers do not support ... a measure that favors only those who are already part of the club