What "one group" would that be? All those papers from hundreds of scientists in dozens of countries and journals that compete for superior material. All thosw ho have managed to convince their peers that their arguments are cogent and worth further consideration EVEN IF the conclusions are not necessarily proved right or accepted as such by the reviewers are members of one group?
The world is full of conspiracy theories but don't you think that you stretch that one a little?
From scientists telling something about the peer review process and pointing to its flaws. Scientists tend to be honest and want truth to prevail.
"[Peer Review] is an undisputed cornerstone of modern science. Central to the competitive clash of ideas that moves knowledge forward, peer review enjoys so much renown in the scientific community that studies lacking its imprimatur meet with automatic skepticism. Academic reputations hinge on an ability to get work through peer review and into leading journals; university presses employ peer review to decide which books they’re willing to publish; and federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health use peer review to weigh the merits of applications for federal research grants.
Put simply, peer review is supposed to weed out poor science. However, it is not foolproof — a deeply flawed paper can end up being published under a number of different potential circumstances: (i) the work is submitted to a journal outside the relevant field (e.g. a paper on paleoclimate submitted to a social science journal) where the reviewers are likely to be chosen from a pool of individuals lacking the expertise to properly review the paper, (ii) too few or too unqualified a set of reviewers are chosen by the editor, (iii) the reviewers or editor (or both) have agendas, and overlook flaws that invalidate the paper’s conclusions, and (iv) the journal may process and publish so many papers that individual manuscripts occasionally do not get the editorial attention they deserve.
Thus, while un-peer-reviewed claims should not be given much credence, just because a particular paper has passed through peer review does not absolutely insure that the conclusions are correct or scientifically valid. The “leaks” in the system outlined above unfortunately allow some less-than-ideal work to be published in peer-reviewed journals. This should therefore be a concern when the results of any one particular study are promoted over the conclusions of a larger body of past published work (especially if it is a new study that has not been fully absorbed or assessed by the community). Indeed, this is why scientific assessments such as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
(ACIA), or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) reports, and the independent
reports by the
National Academy of Sciences, are so important in giving a balanced overview of the state of knowledge in the scientific research community.
