Here is one research funder's perspective I have heard on peer review: yes, of course the funders want the results of the research they fund to be peer reviewed. It is an important means of ensuring, not only quality, but also accountability for the monies spent.
However, the work that goes into the peer review of the final article may be nothing compared to the careful scrutiny by many eyes that goes into the grant proposal!
When we study peer review - of the final article - are we studying the wrong end of the process?
With or without funding, does it not make sense to carefully examine the research question, the background reading, the research method - even before starting the research?
Wouldn't this be a more effective, and cost-effective, means of approaching research, rather than waiting for the mistakes to be made, and then critiquing?
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.