The process of peer review is a generally effective process that ensures that only factual and accurate information is released to the scientific community. The first step of the process involves a group of scientists generating a study and corresponding article based on the contents of that study. This article is then passed to a journal for publication. The journal then passes the article to other experts in whatever the article was written about. These experts ensure that correct methods were followed and the integrity of the scientific process was not violated. They also ensure that the conclusions drawn from the evidence in the study are accurate conclusions that can be made from those data. Then, if approved, the article is passed back to the journal for final publication.
Although the peer review process is generally a great model for ensuring that scientific works remain accurate, there are some glaring problems with it. One is that the experts who are peer reviewing the work may have some sort of monetary incentive from the journal to approve works, even if those works did not follow the correct processes. Additionally, if a work presents some sort of extravagant idea but the underlying data doesn’t necessarily support that idea, the reviewers may be inclined to approve it anyway because it will generate much revenue for the journal.
Another problem is that because the peer reviewers are experts in the same field as those that produced the work, there may be instances where a work is rejected simply because of competition between those experts and those who wrote the article. Also, theft of intellectual property could occur, and one scientists novel idea for studying some particular thing could be stolen my a reviewer.
However, the integrity in the scientific community is generally quite strong, and many value accurate facts and knowledge over money and societal pull, thus these instances are few and far between.
