Much of what we peer review is not real science, at least in its definition of applying the scientific method.

For example, much of computer "science" is not. Math maybe, engineering probably, design sometimes, but "science" is rarely done. BUT the science envy is there, especially post 1990s, and it is as confusing as heck when multiple definitions of "science" collide in a conference culture.

Yes I'm a researcher, no I'm not a scientist.

Peer review is a relatively new aspect of science: the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society started systematic peer review in the mid-19th century https://arts.st-andrews.ac.uk/philosophicaltransactions/brie...

You've illustrated the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive definition nicely.