Peer reviewed has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is just a layer of scientific bureaucracy. Just give me a calibration image of another celestial body and I'll be happy.
But I'm sure you're more of an expert than anybody serving in a peer review board.
Why should I trust you that you know more about astronomy than a team of astronomers and a peer review board?
I've asked you this three times so far and you've not given an answer.
No it doesn't. Most peer review doesn't even attempt to reproduce results, which is the real way to make sure the science is sound.
In the process of doing so, questions and clarifications may better reveal problems with the underlying science itself, which can result in the paper being withdrawn or declined. But peers don’t independently validate results.
At the same time it should be noted that published criticism has to meet the same bar. “You didn’t do the experiment the way I would have” is not really strong criticism. Experiments or observations can always be done better; this is a central ethos of science.
The strongest criticism is usually to conduct one’s own experiment the way one wants, and then show that it produced better results.