To follow up on the points that Val made - do we see the fact that papers with flaws get past reviewers as a fundamental flaw in the review process? I believe that sets the bar too high - every paper that gets to publication should, in my opinion, be seen as passing the first step in the review process. From that point on it is in the public forum and open to continued criticism and rebuttal. If the paper is of little interest we may never hear much about it again. If it is of great general interest (and controversial) it may get 'reviewed' several more times before it's conclusions are accepted by the larger scientific community. If I to approach every paper I review as if it is my responsibility to catch every single mistake I'm not sure I could in good conscious agree to review any papers. There are areas where I believe I have strengths and I tend to focus on those areas when I review papers. For example, I am not a great writer and so don't often have a whole lot to say about writing style. You do the best you can and hope the paper is not fundamentally flawed and the better for having been reviewed - I suspect we are usually (but not always) successful in meeting those goals. That doesn't mean the rest of the scientific community should abdicate its responsibility to read these papers carefully and critically. Best.
Jeff Houlahan
