So basically you're stacking the deck by only allowing sources you deem acceptable.
The emphasis on "peer reviewed" publications as a test of scientific validity is equivalent to your constant reliance on polls. The argument basically states that the test of scientific validity lies in popularity with peers who didn't come up with the concept themselves.
In other words, it's a form of intellectual protectionism by elitists who seek to protect themselves from upstarts who would unseat them. The greatest scientific advances have come from the edges of the bell curve, not the middle. The peer review process is the middle's way of keeping people away from the edges.
Galileo was branded a heretic by the prevailing scientific minds of his day for daring to argue the ridiculous idea that the earth orbited the sun. Powered flight was first achieved not by the scientific establishment, but by a pair of bicycle mechanics. "Peer reviewed" science of its day once believed the Earth was flat and that illness was caused by an imbalance of bodily humors that was best treated through bloodletting. Convention has never fostered innovation.
So how about we focus on validity of the arguments based on science instead of popularity?