This is too funny. You obviously have never published in a scientific
journal. [I have published in them and I have served as an editor - so I do
know a little something of this.] Yes peer review is a wonderful thing.
However, those peers chosen to do reviews are chosen by the journal
editors. Reviewers who do not agree with the editors 'judgement' or 'point
of view' may be ignored and more 'peers' are found to do more reviews - at
times excellent papers are simply rejected without explanation. I'm not
big on 'conspiricy theories', but if you define consipracy as a controling
financial interest that governs who gets grants and research funding, who
is hired and fired by universities, who gets published, and who gets
degrees - then I suggest you go visit an major university - and follow the
funding.


If there was a conspiracy it would be
> rapidly exposed unless you are suggesting that the hundreds of thousands
> of scientists who publish in respectable journals are part of a
> conspiracy? I don't know why you flat out reject the rationality of
> science but I urge you to open your mind to the explanations of science.
>