Frankly, I don't think "peer-reviewed" means anything anymore. First, if it doesn't agree with the herd, it is unlikely that a paper will even be accepted in a peer-reviewed publication. Second, soothsayers don't make a practice of calling each other out as fakes. If one climate scientist would point out that climate modelling is inherently a joke, then no model (and no grant money) is safe.
Yes, you're probably right. I guess I'm remembering the "good old days" when scientific rigor was the rule. I momentarily overlooked the corruption that's compromised the professional journals.
While "Discover" Magazine is a far from being a pro journal I was astonished at what a junk science propaganda medium it is. My wife gave me a gift subscription and nearly every article had some sneaky reference to global warming/climate change/overpopulation etc. It's thoroughly politicized and not credible.