alt Hacker NewsPoor wording on my part.
I should have said "Peer review doesn't catch _all_ errors" or perhaps "Peer review doesn't eliminate errors".
In other words, being "peer reviewed" is nowhere close to "error free," and if (as is often the case) the rate of errors is significantly greater than the rate at which errors are caught, peer review may not even significantly improve the quality.
Thanks for clarifying, I fully agree with your take. Peer review helps, particularly where reviewers are equipped and provided the time to do the role correctly.
However, it is not alone a guarantor of quality. As someone proximate to academia its becoming obvious that many professors are beginning to throw in the towel or are sharply reducing their time verifying quality when faced with the rising tide of slop.
The window for avoiding the natural consequences of these trends feels like it is getting scarily small.
Thanks for taking the time to reply!