The two aren't separable, since a key part of peer review is assuring that a published study is, in principle, reproducible. You can't focus on reproduction withoit focussing on peer review.
But the fact that your peer (i.e. another academic who works in the same area) has read your paper and commented on it in the process of publication (i.e. customary "formal peer review") does not reflect on its reproducibility. The peer, being a human, has attentional deficits and there's probably true facts that increase the chances of the result occurring by chance which are not considered worthy of publication.
Until a paper's result is reproduced, it can't be regarded as reproducible.
I mean, isn't reproducing a study the ultimate peer-review?