In a perfect world, it is supposed to be experts of your field making sure all your data and conclusions check out. As in devoid of unnoticed errors or unexplained jumps in logic. Which is a valid enough thing, because of how easy such things are to fuck up when you are too deep in your own shit.
But as we know, its not a perfect world and most of the time the critique is about the politics and networking instead of actual data.
It was never satisfactorily explained to me in uni how peer review wasn't merely argumentum ad populum.
Peer review is just like any other system: entirely dependent on the integrity and competency of the people who run it.
In a perfect world, it is supposed to be experts of your field making sure all your data and conclusions check out. As in devoid of unnoticed errors or unexplained jumps in logic. Which is a valid enough thing, because of how easy such things are to fuck up when you are too deep in your own shit.
But as we know, its not a perfect world and most of the time the critique is about the politics and networking instead of actual data.