“Peer Reviewed” Is Something—But It Could Be So Much Better

Why science needs a credibility scale as obvious as movie ratings—and we already know how to do it

You’ve heard it a thousand times:

“Relax, it’s peer reviewed.”

Okay, great. So some people the author might know read the paper and said, “Looks good to me,” before moving on with their day. It’s not a scam. It’s not worthless. It’s just… not enough. Checking the raw data isn’t required. Reproducing the results isn’t required. Actually running the experiment yourself and confirming the outcome isn’t required. Those things might have happened—or not—but the “peer reviewed” label doesn’t tell us. And it would be very helpful to everyone if we had a system that did.

“Peer reviewed” doesn’t mean replicated. It doesn’t mean confirmed. It doesn’t even mean the methods were tested in the real world. It just means: someone with credentials thought the paper made sense on paper.

We can do better. And the fix is so obvious it’s embarrassing we haven’t already done it.

The Credibility Scale

A four-level system that tells you exactly how far along a scientific idea is—from “Looks solid on paper” to “It’s working in the real world.”

Level 1: Peer Reviewed (Unverified)

Experts read it and said, “Seems legit.” That’s helpful. But it’s still trust-based. No replication yet.

Level 2: Independently Replicated

Another team ran the same experiment and got similar results. Now we’re talking. This is where science starts to get serious.

Level 3: Multiplied & Reproduced

Multiple teams. Multiple methods. Still holding up. Now it’s on solid ground.

Level 4: Applied in the Real World

We’re not just believing it—we’re using it. It’s working in the real world.

Imagine if every scientific claim came with one of these labels. You’d have a much clearer sense of how much confidence to place in it. Instead of lumping everything under one vague label—“peer reviewed”—we’d finally be honest about how solid a finding really is.

Right now, science gets one vague stamp: peer reviewed. That’s absurd.

This would fix that. It’s not radical. It’s not complicated. It’s just overdue.

Let’s grow up. Give science its own credibility scale.