When something is peer reviewed, how much trust are the reviewers saying you should give it?
I'm not talking about whether peer review works, I'm asking what peer review means ideally.
For example, I know you should trust a peer reviewed article more than, say, a blog post. At the same time, if an article passes peer-review, that doesn't mean the reviewers are saying that the article should be accepted as eternal truth and never questioned further.
So how much trust does peer review give?
- Should one trust that citations are claiming what is in the articles they cite?
- If there isn't anyone who has disagreed yet, should I assume it's true for the purpose of discussions, without further examination?
- Should public policy be based on it, without further examination?
- Should I trust data to have been collected correctly?
- Should I trust data to have been processed correctly?
This probably varies by field (for example, I imagine pure mathematics and related fields, which already have high standards for rigour, are endowed with a ton of trust once peer reviewed).