Usually, reviewers work at the behest of the journal to which an article was submitted. In some cases, they are kept anonymous, so that the reviewer can more honestly criticize without worrying about straining academic relationships. If the reviewers think that an article has "atrocious science", then they will recommend that the article not be published.

I concur with this first sentence strongly, simply because I know that's how it works. What I don't typically see is people clamoring to point out that an article is reviewed, especially not when maintaining that the identity of the reviews is anonymous. That's not something you specify unless you're trying to tell people "Please don't call and ask who reviewed this shit." I have never seen a quality article that needs to point out it's reviewed anonymously. In fact, pretty much the only time I see it is reviewing Chiropractic Medicine Journals, because they're always good for a laugh.

That's a large red flag right there.

There are 118 references in that article. They are used in a variety of context and must be judged individually. There is nothing inherently objectionable about them.

Again, I'm not debating that, especially in the context of nuance. I chose what I chose because they're questionable sources being used as data points, at least at a casual glance. I'll be the first to tell you I didn't at all take a rigorous assessment of it, but what I did look at I didn't like. You know that's how it works, you've got >9000 pieces of literature to dig though, the first thing you head for is the references to start sorting the trash from what you need.

I work in mathematics, and I have seen The Lord of the Rings referenced in a paper.

I know someone that did their Economics dissertation on EvE online.