Sure would be terrible if judging professionals by the opinions of their peers was how we determined the legitimacy of their claims.

Down with peer-reviewed journals! We should just take scientists on their word that they're operating professionally!

There's a big reproducibility crisis in science as a result of this "you pat my back, I'll pat your back" mentality. Peer review is not immune to groupthink.

Even worse than that, there's straight up research fraud from labs at big universities. Fraud that slips through peer review and then the journals and reviewers get out the pitchforks when it's pointed out.

https://forbetterscience.com/

Thanks for teaching me that a paper rejected implies a rejection of your character as OP implied.The more you learn.

Experiments can be reproduced as opposed to sources. Mutual references to each other did cause a lot of problems in science.

Peer review is not about judging a person / scientists charter, political opinions, or anything about them as a person.

Well at least that is not what is SUPPOSE to do.

Peer review is about reviewing the science, not the charter of the scientists.

science has a real problem today because it is becoming less about the raw science and more about who is doing the science and if they have the "correct" political or other opinions