I do not care how many "peer-reviewed" journals your work appears in; show me the evidence! (Was it even "reviewed" by anyone to begin with? Who used the scientific method to reproduce your results?) Show me the process you used to come to your conclusion. If your work starts and ends at a hypothesis, and consists of zero experimentation and observation (you know, that pesky little thing known as the 'scientific method'), then your work is not science. It might be science-fiction, pseudo-science, non-science, and just pure nonsense, but it is not science. Do not call yourself a "scientist" if your work does not involve or follow the scientific method. Speculation is not science. If you cannot test and observe the results, then what you are telling people is, at best, nothing more than fictional story telling (like most the information told to people about dinosaurs/dragons), or, at worst, false religion (like the information told to people about "Big Bang" and "Evolution"). Scientism is not science!
"What is science? People talk glibly about science; what is science? People coming out of University with a Master's Degree or a PhD, you take them into the field and they literally don't believe anything unless it's a peer-reviewed paper. It's the only thing they accept. You say to them, 'Let's observe, let's think, let's discuss'; they don't do it. 'Is it in a peer-reviewed paper or not?' That's their view of science. I think it's pathetic. Going into Universities as bright people, but coming out of them brain dead, not even knowing what science means. They think it means peer-reviewed papers, etc. No, that's Academia, and if a paper's peer-reviewed, it means everybody thought the same, therefore they approved it. An unintended consequence is that when new knowledge emerges, new scientific insights, they can never ever be peer-reviewed. So we're blocking all new advances in science, that are big advances. If you look at the breakthroughs in science, almost always they don't come from the center of that profession; they come from the fringe, people who see it differently. The finest candle makers in the world couldn't even think of electric lights. They don't come from within, they often come from outside the breaks. We're going to kill ourselves because of stupidity." —Allen Savory
"If it’s consensus, it's not science. If it’s science, it's not consensus. Period. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid." —Michael Crichton
"Peer-review" amounts to a hill of dung; it is worthless and useless and akin to "consensus." You get a bunch of like-minded fools to agree with your erroneous and far-fetched imaginations and then attempt to label it as "science" (as with the "Big Bang" and "Evolution"). They participate in their own mutually-affirming dance. Whenever people invoke "consensus" or "peer-review," I know not to take them serious as they obviously don't have a clue what in the world they are talking about.
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." ―Galileo Galilei