Despite the number of complaints lodged at peer review, and the lack of research to show that it works, it remains a valued system, says Rennie. Scientists sigh when they're asked to review a paper, but they get upset if they're not asked, he notes. Reviewing articles is a good exercise, Rennie says, and it enables reviewers to stay abreast of what's going on. Peer review "has many imperfections, but I think it's probably the best system we've got," says Bateson.
Experts also acknowledge that peer review is hardly ever to blame when fraud is published, since thoroughly checking data could take as much time as creating it in the first place.
Forgive me but then what good is it?
When my work is reviewed or I review the work of another the big thing we are looking for is error and/or fraud.
If peer reviewed means nothing more then "We found this idea interesting" then it becomes worthless as measure as to the value of the data presented.