Peer review is a quality control mechanism in scholarly research. Most usage refers to a process in which after a paper has been submitted to a journal - an editor of that journal invites independent (external) experts to evaluate that work and provide advice on how the paper could be improved before it is published and shared with the world. However, studies have shown that reviewers fail to detect scientific misconduct, undeclared conflicts of interests, questionable research practices, (significant) methodological deficiencies of papers, spin in results interpretation and generalizability, and transparent reporting needed to assess studies’ risk of bias or quality. Furthermore, peer review has been criticized for scepticism toward innovative research, gender and country bias, low inter-rater agreement between reviewers, long delays it imposes between study submission and publication, and a lack of (certified) reviewer training programs or structured formats that could (perhaps) help reviewers produce reports of better (or sufficient) quality. In this talk I reported on the meta-research on peer review and provided some recommendations for its improvement.