It's not that simple, and peer review is, like any human institution, full of politics and humbuggery. It's possibly the best process we know, but don't invest it with special powers. I think the peer review process probably works best in the so-called hard sciences, but it's certainly let some stinkers through there as well. -XC
I agree. I think peer review indicates another level of certitude, but the value of peer review depends on the quality of the journal (the editors and peers selected), the culture of the discipline, and the current prevailing scientific consensus. Peer review is a variable entity. That said, Phys Rev B is a solid journal, and physicists are typically sticklers. The way I see it, theory predicted a Higgs, this particle fits the description, so for all intensive purposes, it is the Higgs we were looking for. Of course, now people will try to take that apart, or expand upon it. To me, this article suggests that their ducks were in a row, and there weren't any big gaps in the analysis.