In economics, it's usually one way. The authors don't know who reviewed your paper, their paper, but the reviewer knows who wrote it. Is that true in psychology also? It's almost always true with some exception of blind peer review. I think those of us in the kitchen know that peer review is deeply imperfect and maybe better than an alternative. For me, the bigger problem is how the non academics consume peer reviewed research as if it's truth.
Do psychologists know anything? Psychologist Paul Bloom says yes--but not the things that you might think. Bloom discusses his book Psych with EconTalk's Russ Roberts and what the field of psychology can teach us about human intelligence, consciousness, and unhelpful instincts. They also discuss just how far psychology is from a true understanding of the human mind, and why, according to Bloom, that might not be such a bad thing.