Peer review, the evaluation of data and interpretations for publication by peers selected by the editors and unknown to the investigators, is considered the crown jewel of science, but its reputation is larger than the reality. The idea that peer review can effectively police the data published is obviously false since erroneous data are regularly published. Peer review cannot operate as planned if reviewers do not have enough expertise to evaluate the entirety of the argument each manuscript presents. Much data published cannot be practically assessed because of reliance on opaque analytical tools such as machine learning and complex computer-generation calculations. In that sense peer review is a misnomer. Regardless, it is important to review data prior to publication, not to accept or reject, but to critique and improve. Peer review should not be the gatekeeper for publication. An alternative system of peer review is proposed.