From the videos:
"....that's the good aspect of peer review. It should work to sift out problems with the interpretation, problems with the results. It should work to improve a paper. The problem is ..... there is a huge volume of stuff and we are increasingly getting swamped. .... here is one of the worst examples of where peer review has entirely failed. ...."
The examples he talks about is discussed in this blog post.
When you zoom in, you can clearly see that it is photo-shopped.
...this is one of the top ranking journals in the fields...
Now here is the really troublesome aspect... if they had done it better (you can see a much better photo-shopped image in the blog), how would we know. Not only is money spent in that lab, other groups would chase this up and that's the worrying aspect and it builds and builds. Science is like that.
In the past if the referees didn't pick it up, that was the end of the story. We now have something called the post publication peer review. There are sites ( PubPeer) and there blogs (ChemBark, Chemistry Blog) where people upload paper and say well this looks like a great paper or in many cases they go "there is something I don't quite get here" and that leads to lots of comments from people in the field and I think this is where we are evolving to... away from the traditional peer review system. The publication is seen to be the start of the scientific process and not the end, where you generate debate.
Are there other such examples in physics? Can you point me towards a blog/site or something of the sort that goes through these things?
Are there any blogs, articles or essays that discuss problems surrounding the peer-review process (in relation to physics). How it can improved, where alternative methods like post-publication review are discussed ? I know ChemBark for chemistry, I am looking for it's "equivalent" in physics.