For you science doer types, any thoughts on peer review?

[landpoke]

I found this quote when looking for a definition of "peer reviewed." Any comments as to the accuracy of this assessment?

"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

Richard Horton, Editor, The Lancet

I'm a bit perturbed at the moment by the use of "peer reviewed" as a hallmark of infallibility. Especially when the data, to this non-science-doer-guy's eyes, very clearly indicates that the conclusions reached by a researcher are incorrect.

As an aside, several science-doer types share my conclusions about the data and paper in question. So it's not just the ranting of an unschooled kook.