You can often see a p-hacked study from a mile away because they measure large numbers of unnecessary variables. They then pick those 4 variables that yield a probably false signal and publish on it. One would think these would never pass peer review, but they're regularly peer reviewed, published, and then, shockingly enough, fail to replicate. Hypothesizing after the results are known falls in the same bucket here. This is why pre-publishing kicked off, yet it's also hardly a savior.
The point I make is that peer review can not be guaranteed to 'fix' science in any way we might like. The Sokal Affair [1] has now been replicated repeatedly, including in peer reviewed journals. The most recent one even got quite cheeky and published it under the names "Sage Owens, Kal Avers-Lynde III" - Sokal III. [2] It always preys on the same weakness - bias confirmation.
The point I make is that peer review can not be guaranteed to 'fix' science in any way we might like. The Sokal Affair [1] has now been replicated repeatedly, including in peer reviewed journals. The most recent one even got quite cheeky and published it under the names "Sage Owens, Kal Avers-Lynde III" - Sokal III. [2] It always preys on the same weakness - bias confirmation.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
[2] - https://www.nationalreview.com/news/academic-journal-publish...