Do academic reviewers have a duty to critique authors who submit questionable research? I recently reviewed a paper that made some very strong claims that were not supported by the data. However, it was much more than that. These claims were so extreme that that were actively misleading: e.g., "The present results represent the most important findings in personality psychology to date." (Not as bad as this example, but not too far off..)

I wrestled with two options in my review.

A.) I could respond in a scientifically disinterested manner: e.g., "These strong claims are not supported by the data. Please revise them."

OR

B.) I could go beyond that and politely "critique" the authors for their questionable practice: e.g., "These strong claims are not supported by the data. In fact, they represent such an "overselling" of the manuscript's findings that they are actively misleading. Please revise them and we urge the authors to avoid such hyperbolic claims in the future."

In the end, I went with something like option B.) because I think that there is inherent value in stating firmly that these kinds of practices are not okay. As a scientific peer, I did not at all appreciate these obvious efforts to oversell the results for the sake of "a top publication." As reviewers, we are the guardians of scientific literatures, and when appropriate, perhaps we should scold our fellow researchers for questionable scientific practices to deter them against such behaviors in the future.

This begs the intriguing question: Do academic reviewers bear a responsibility to critique authors for engaging in questionable practices that undermine the validity of scientific literatures?

Very interested to hear the views of others!

Edit: "Reviewer" is intended to refer to one's role as a reviewer of publication submissions for journals.
My feeling is that rather than explicitly telling the authors what to do in a context other than the present submission, it would be better to explain your objection to their present submission in a way which would make clear to any moderately receptive party that the advice would apply more generally.  E.g. something like


  In my opinion, the authors overestimate the significance of their work to a degree that becomes actively misleading: virtually no work in the field has the level of significance claimed by the authors here.   In general, work which is described in such hyperbolic terms can be hard to take seriously.  Those who do make major breakthroughs tend to describe the advances in more sober, factual ways.  


This is plenty heavy-handed.  Anyone who is listening will get the message not only to tone down the language in this submission but that such language is never appropriate.  Still, you aren't telling them what to do, but only giving your (expert) opinion on the consequences of their actions.