[Rockingham]

Peer review is a flawed system, but with nothing better yet devised, it endures as the primary standard for evaluating scientific research. The larger issue -- the soundness of much peer-reviewed and published scientific research -- remains in doubt.

For example, a few years ago, a major drug company reviewed the published literature on cancer in search of new drug targets. Then, with targets identified, they tried duplicating the key published research -- just to make sure -- and were startled to find that much of that research could not be duplicated. The entire project was then abandoned as a waste of effort.

For a more detailed accounting of the defects in published scientific research, I suggest taking a look at: Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance and The misuse and abuse of statistics in biomedical research.

[Paladin2]

Peer Review seems to be largely Pal Review. Some cases of Open Review seem to have emerged and could be a better system.