> Is that a failure of peer-review though?

It raises questions around using peer-review as a mark of scientific quality. If it is, why does peer reviewed science time and time again turn out to have enormous glaring quality problems?

I think the core problem here is the layperson perception of peer review. People often say "it is a peer-reviewed paper!" when trying to claim that a paper is definitive and powerful. But when you speak to scientists they have a much more muted understanding of peer review. And I think that is okay. The amount of effort it would take to do a very thorough analysis of a paper is large, sometimes even approaching the cost to do the research in the first place.

In fact, peer review is often more about novelty and importance rather than rigor. Very well structured research will get rejected if it isn't seen as contributing to the field in a nontrivial way.

A few fields (psych is the big one) are funding replication grants. That'd be the true mark of quality.

> In fact, peer review is often more about novelty and importance rather than rigor. Very well structured research will get rejected if it isn't seen as contributing to the field in a nontrivial way.

This is actually deeply problematic, as a part of what's driving the replication problems is specifically publication bias. If the only thing that gets published are unexpected or noteworthy results, you're selecting for statistical aberrations.

I don't really agree. I think it is valuable to push novel and influential results into visible venues and to reward work of this kind. It is critical to understand how this introduces bias into the process and to consider this when reading a given paper, but I'm not sure that a review system that only considers experimental rigor would be desirable.

I think this is like the difference between homeopathy and medicine. If you're sick and go to a doctor, you have a chance that the doctor will find a way to cure you. If you're sick and go to a homeopath, there's no chance that the homeopath will find a way to cure you. Similarly, peer review has a chance to catch errors before they make it to print, while absence of peer review has no such chance.

Peer review is not infallible, neither is it a mark of scientific quality, as you say. I appreciate that people tend to use it like that- you read, in articles in the lay press, that such-and-such study was "not published in a peer-reviewed journal" as if to say that we can't be sure of the quality of the study and that, conversely, if it was peer-reviewed, we could. That's not right. Peer review is not a sufficient condition to guarantee correct results. It's not even a necessary condition. Like I say in my comment above it is one mechanism of modern research practices that helps improve the quality of published papers.

> If you're sick and go to a homeopath, there's no chance that the homeopath will find a way to cure you

Wrong, sorry. Disclaimer: I'm not a homeopath and don't go to any. Most of them are, in fact, quacks.

There are, unfortunately, chronic diseases which can be treated but not cured. Mainstream doctors and Big Pharma make a living off of those. If you have one of those, "well, why NOT try a homeopath?" is a perfectly rationale response.

"Sinus rinsing" is something that might be termed "homeopathy." It IS medically respectable, unlike most of their "treatments" (like magnets).