What? Yes it is! This is exactly how peer review works! People look at the paper, read it, and then reproduce it, poke holes, etc.

Peer review has nothing to do with "being published in some fancy-looking formatted PDF in some journal after passing an arbitrary committee" or whatever, it's literally review by your peers.

Now, do I have problems with this specific paper and how it's written in a semi-magical way that surely requires the reader suspend disbelief? For sure, but that's completely independent of the "peer-review" aspect of it.

▲

emil-lp a day ago | parent [-]

If you believe that citation is the same as review, I have stuff to sell you.

Reviewing a paper can easily take 3 weeks full time work.

Looking at a paper and assuming it is correct, followed by citing it, can literally take seconds.

I'm a researcher and there are definitely two modes of reading papers: review mode and usage mode.

	▲	LolWolf a day ago \| parent [-]
		No, I don't believe that a citation is the same as peer review, it is, as I understand it from the post you're replying to, an observation that other people have looked at it. (Indeed, if you actually go through and _read_ this particular paper, you can see that they also cite multiple reproductions and extensions of the paper. I would call that peer review—and certainly much better peer review than most nonsense that appears from committees. Ask me how I know.)