Peer Review is NOT generic

This is not an attack on PeerJ but a general peer review. PeerJ is my favorite journal because of its very low sticking to transparency, such as publishing cost, publication speed, and peer review history. PeerJ Preprints is a pre-print server I like. I hope these clips show that these reviewers are clearly not "experts". Worried over the reviewers, they said they did not say. Their comments are very concise, giving the impression that they have browsed the papers and wrote them as if they were working. All what they say shows that they all know about TCGA data, cancer research, web development, even basic biology.

The relevance of the peer review is obviously different for each function of the journal. Peer review is often thought of as essential for shaping the role of knowledge archiving and assigning rewards. It also plays an important role in identifying the quality of research in a particular field, but as Kumairo points out, it may also prevent the spread of new ideas and methods. Peer review is of little value and may be an obstacle to promoting communication among scholars in a particular field, regardless of the role of building a scientific community.

Peer review is an evaluation system in which academic researchers (articles, papers, grant applications, etc.) are judged by researchers in the same academic field. Peer review has played an important role in academic publishing over the past few decades, and most magazines use it for quality control. In the journal, in general, the main purpose of peer review is to judge the feasibility, importance, novelty, etc. of research results with the help of peer researchers, and based on this, the editor can publish the paper Decide whether to accept or not.