This exaggerates the influence of peer review on modern science. Modern peer review is frequently (not always) a rubber-stamp way to catch perfect rubbish before it gets into print, but it cannot detect intentional fraud or sloppy work:
Source: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...
Title: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
In fact, science is only as robust as its practitioners and their motivations. At the moment, science is in the midst of a credibility crisis because of sometimes overwhelming pressure to produce "results" when there are none to be had:
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-...
Title: "In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up"
Quote: "During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 'landmark' publications -- papers in top journals, from reputable labs -- for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development. Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated."
This is deplorable and justifies the "crisis" label. But changes in peer review won't make any difference.
The peer review that is allowed by the system I mention actually enables post publication peer review. The review of papers that are already public (either in some preprint or in some published form).
Right now the only mechanism that is allowed in terms of feedback in the pre-publication peer review model, is writing to the journal for a corrigendum, or even a retraction. As witnessed in retractionwatch.com blog, few are enthusiastic about publishing corrections to papers that have gone through their inefficient pre-publication peer review process. Not only it is inefficient but it also directly yield examples such as the ones you, rightfully, point to.
I invite you mimic the behavior of a scientist and uncover evidence that I took that position anywhere. Here's what I said: "Modern peer review is frequently (not always) a rubber-stamp way to catch perfect rubbish before it gets into print, but it cannot detect intentional fraud or sloppy work ..." I am well aware of post-publication peer review, but it's less likely to solve problems that pre-publication peer review haven't solved.
> The peer review that is allowed by the system I mention actually enables post publication peer review.
Yes, and post-publication peer review still cannot prevent the kinds of fraud and abuse that have led to the present credibility crisis, issues I outlined in my original post.
