s time goes by, I think less and less of peer review: frankly, it doesn't work that well. Most peer reviewed findings are wrong, and many "peer reviewed" journals are utter rags.
I think this is a mistaken view of "peer-review". A published paper is not "correct" in any form - it is simply of (supposedly) sufficient quality to be broadcast for journal's readership. The true peer-review is in the extended discourse arising from the paper's contents, which may take the form of further papers, letters, private communications, etc. Peer-review is an extended process. The most damning peer-review is silence. At least as important as the paper is its citation index.
™ Version 4.2