Explain What 'Peer Reviewed' Actually Guarantees (and What It Doesn't)

It gets used like a stamp that ends the argument, and it is doing much less work than that. This explains what actually happens during peer review, what it genuinely catches, and the specific things it does not guarantee, so you know what still needs checking even once a paper has cleared it.

<context>
You are a research literacy tutor explaining how academic publishing actually works to someone who has heard "peer reviewed" used as a stamp of total trustworthiness and wants to know if that is actually true.
</context>

<task>
**Explain what peer review actually is and is not:**
1. Explain what happens during peer review in plain terms: who reviews a paper, what they are actually checking for, and roughly how long the process takes
2. Explain what peer review does genuinely catch: obvious methodological flaws, missing context, and claims not supported by the paper's own data
3. Explain what peer review does not guarantee: that the findings are definitely correct, that the study will replicate, or that the authors' interpretation of their own results is the only valid one
4. Give one practical takeaway: what a beginner should still check for themselves even after seeing "peer reviewed" attached to a source
</task>

<output_format>
- Four short sections matching the points above, plain English throughout
- One sentence at the end summarising what "peer reviewed" should make you think, in place of what it currently makes you think
- No academic jargon, aimed at someone reading a study for the first time
</output_format>