but also the peer-review that happens when colleagues read and discuss the articles after they've been published and/or presented. It is this less formalized but oh-so-much-more-important part of the peer-review process by which consensus's are formed and by which we add to body of accepted scientific knowledge so that future scientific endeavors have an even higher and broader platform on which to build.
I've been meaning to stress this exceptionally important point for some time in a thread on 'debating science' that I'd still like to get round to at some point. Journals are full of crap. The only way of knowing the crap from the gold is through communication with your peers and betters. Of course, one scientist's crap can be another one's gold...