Peer review in and of itself is of limited value, and usually reveals cosmetic, as opposed by structural, errors. How many code reviews can be summarized by the letters "L", "G", "T", and "M"?

Replication matters. The echo chamber of peer review much less so.

> usually reveals cosmetic, as opposed by structural, errors

I agree, science has become a form of writing and the peer-review will most likely figure out if you are familiar with that form.

Most actual peer-reviewing is bogus, facile comments, by people not even bothering to read the paper (when they're not in cahoots with the author and journal).