As the world grapples with realities warped by faux science, stand up and say "Science is not broken. Fraud is illegal". There is a difference between Science and Fraud. Learn it-and support Science.
I have always thought that peer reviewers should be anonymous until an issue is resolved. Then the peer reviewers should be named and held accountable for approving a study without sufficient scrutiny (for example, the famous retracted story in the Lancet that was based on fake data) or without exposing the limitations of the study (for example the Principle study where ivermectin was given exactly contrary to normal guidelines in order to minimize absorption) or when significant high-quality studies are published in lesser known journals after being rejected by peer review for unethical/financial reasons. For the first offense, loss of anonymous peer reviewer status for all publications for one year. Second offense, four years. Third offense, ten years. Fourth offense, twenty years. Of course, in this upside world of ours, this could result in good scientists being banned from anonymous peer review. These banned scientists could still do peer review but they would be named and the controversy resulting in their ban of anonymous review would be referenced. Likewise, editors-in-chief may continue in their positions but a note explaining the controversy would appear on the inside front page of the journal for the specified amount of time and for at least one 12 monthly or 5 quarterly editions after the termination of employment (resignation, retirement, firing, death, etc.)
I have always thought that peer reviewers should be anonymous until an issue is resolved. Then the peer reviewers should be named and held accountable for approving a study without sufficient scrutiny (for example, the famous retracted story in the Lancet that was based on fake data) or without exposing the limitations of the study (for example the Principle study where ivermectin was given exactly contrary to normal guidelines in order to minimize absorption) or when significant high-quality studies are published in lesser known journals after being rejected by peer review for unethical/financial reasons. For the first offense, loss of anonymous peer reviewer status for all publications for one year. Second offense, four years. Third offense, ten years. Fourth offense, twenty years. Of course, in this upside world of ours, this could result in good scientists being banned from anonymous peer review. These banned scientists could still do peer review but they would be named and the controversy resulting in their ban of anonymous review would be referenced. Likewise, editors-in-chief may continue in their positions but a note explaining the controversy would appear on the inside front page of the journal for the specified amount of time and for at least one 12 monthly or 5 quarterly editions after the termination of employment (resignation, retirement, firing, death, etc.)