Comment by bee_rider

> The psychology replication crisis is a prime example of why peer reviews and publishing in a journal matters 0.

Specifically, it works as an example of a specific case where peer review doesn’t help as much. Peer review checks your arguments, not your data collection process (which the reviewer can’t audit for obvious reasons). It works fine in other scenarios.

Peer review is unrelated to replication problems, except to the extent to which confused people expect peer review to fix totally unrelated replication problems.