So your complaint is that journals are situated at the wrong step in the verification process? Making your methodology and results public so that they can be independently reproduced isn't incorrect.
When the signal to noise ratio approaches zero due to "peer review" flooding the market with garbage, then I would argue that they are at the wrong step. They just make finding real breakthroughs into a search for a needle in a haystack.
So your complaint is that journals are situated at the wrong step in the verification process? Making your methodology and results public so that they can be independently reproduced isn't incorrect.
"can" being the operative word. Not "have" been reproduced, but "can" be reproduced. Posting it in a journal doesn't mean it will be reproduced.
Also, followup studies that don't support the initial finding are often rejected because the study contradicts peer-reviewed findings
I agree with this idea. We should debate the evidence, not the opinion.
When the signal to noise ratio approaches zero due to "peer review" flooding the market with garbage, then I would argue that they are at the wrong step. They just make finding real breakthroughs into a search for a needle in a haystack.