No, the results need to be shown to be reproducible as part of the review, otherwise the review is nothing more than a parroting acceptance or an opinionated negation.
Normally, the scientist reproduces the results as part of the experimental phase of the scientific process and then it should also be reproducable in the peer review process.
Without the reproduction of results, peer review is next to worthless
Right. Peer review usually comes after this step.
No, the results need to be shown to be reproducible as part of the review, otherwise the review is nothing more than a parroting acceptance or an opinionated negation.
Normally, the scientist reproduces the results as part of the experimental phase of the scientific process and then it should also be reproducable in the peer review process.