A detailed academic critique shows how peer review should work. Reviewers pick through an argument to improve its factual accuracy and evidentiary support. They need not agree with the conclusion when the disputed statement is adequately supported. Historical method here means disciplined disagreement rather than automatic consensus.
Notable Point · 12:52-14:04
How peer review preserves evidence-backed disagreement
A friendly dispute over Slava becomes a concise explanation of why rigorous peer review can strengthen scholarship without forcing every reviewer to agree.