You're right that what is all too commonly called "peer review" is not, strictly speaking, the real peer review. It's actually a shortcut version. (However, this is not to say that I don't think this pre-publication refereeing cannot serve a useful purpose.)

I most certainly agree that there are far too many instances where words are misused (even abused) to mean what they do not, thus loosing their more true meaning. While I agree that language is dynamic and should be able to "evolve",* I abhor the way words are all too often stripped of their more original, appropriate meaning by the improper application of such in place of more appropriate words (I can share many examples, and I'm sure others can think of many I haven't).

Unfortunately, it has been occurring for many decades and there's no sign of it ceasing. However, we can always hope that by raising the red flag and recommending the substitution of more appropriate words (that, perhaps, the users just haven't thought of) the tide may, at least, be slowed.

David

* I certainly don't believe in being like the French and "policing" the language to prevent "corruption" from other languages.