I have recently been asked to review a paper, and realistically, it's got flaws. I am going to suggest in my review that the paper is rejected.
However, I have had a previous experience where I suggested rejection but gave a detailed and constructive review anyway, and then saw the paper published and unchanged a few months later in another journal. I am concerned that the same will happen again and am looking for normal solutions to this and would like to ask on the academia stack exchange, but I'm not sure it's on topic - I've had previous questions go off topic.
Would asking about this problem, and asking how/if one should pursue cases where flawed papers get sent to you for review, or even what to do when you see a paper with a technical/theoretical flaw published?
In short the question would ask what to do when a published paper has a flaw which you notice, and whether one can do something proactively when reviewing the paper.
What are the options when you notice a critical flaw in a paper?
One could simply ignore it, but this is damaging to the research community. Could one write a response article which identifies and explains the flaws? If it is for a paper received for review could one contact the editor to request the publication of a response alongside the article?