A short term remedy is proposed in the hope of curtailing the proliferation of statistical and inferential error rife within the publiched archaeological literature. First, a study by Isbell and Schreiber, one that violates rudimentary quantitative and qualitative analytical precepts, yet nevertheless was published in American Antiquity, is discussed in depth in order to exemplify the extent to wich matters have deteriorated within the discipline. Then, this analysis, in conjunction with the various compendia of statistical abuse compiled by numerous professionals within the field, is invoked as support for an argument advocating structural changes in the peer review system. Perhaps such solutions could be implemented until previously proposed long term solutions, such as David Thoma´s call for compulsory courses and certification examinations to satisfy academic degree requirements, are finally instituted.