Does rice milk or milk from grain-fed cows emit less methane?

[HappySkeptic]

Peer review is not the same as communication.  Peer review means you don't get to share your ideas before your peers have determined that it is likely free from mistakes, and is providing something new.  It is largely about the cost of disseminating information, and the reputation of the journal doing the publication.

Science works perfectly fine by validation or falsification by others after publication.  It doesn't require a pre-publication gatekeeper.

That's not true at all. Most of the published research is wrong. Passing peer-review means only the paper is not obviously wrong. And my previous paper published in Regionalne Studije contained basically nothing new, the only thing new there was the (basically irrelevant to the topic) speculation that PIE *danu (river) and PAN *danau (lake) were related.

Well, then, obviously science can happen without pre-publication peer review, as it is sometimes just a rubber stamp anyway.  That is our point.

I've reviewed many papers.  I had no way of knowing whether the research was faulty.  All I could judge is whether the work seems worthy of publication.  Is it not obviously wrong, is it disseminating new information, and is it written in the form of a scientific paper? 

I also checked that it is not jus  a rehash of previous work (which is very common.  You do 1 piece of work, and get a conference proceeding, a letter article, a full article, and a follow-up article.  Sometimes it is justified.  Many times it isn't).