>it has failed at its mission as a peer-reviewed journal

Peer-reviewed just means:

(a) a bunch of guys had a cursory look at the research, which they might or might not be able to follow (even basic math), and left some hasty criticism on low hanging fruits (or the personal pet peeves they always mention) to pretend they thoroughly read it, and accepted it

(b) Some scholar friends accepted this as a favor to other academic friends, who will backrub them when they submit their own research, and help each other pad their paper counts

And meta-analysis means:

(c) Let's take 80 crap papers, study them as if they're relevant, and get some statistical takeways...

Peer review only is the initial smell test, and don’t mean it’s actually true. Fraud for example can often pass peer review just fine. That said, it does catch errors and rejects a lot of junk which is why it’s considered important.

No, peer review is “there doesn’t seem to be an major errors and the thinking is reasonable”

I run across peer reviewed garbage on nih.gov all the time. I report them and quite rarely they are taken down. Others put more effort into this than me. They will publish nonsensical papers to expose the vulnerabilities. I am too lazy for that.

You have a weird view of academia