As you've seen, many hold "peer review" as the gold standard standard of "science".<quoted text>
Ahhh..The Krebs cycle. I didn't realize it was initially rejected. Spent many nights studying that in college!! Publish or perish would definitely be an influencing factor. It seems that peer review has become the end all-be all and used against you if you aren't published.
I searched for "peer review gold standard" and found many interesting articles challenging that notion.
The following is from an article on medical peer review:
--Fraud, flawed articles and corrections have haunted general interest news organizations. But such problems are far more embarrassing for scientific journals because of their claims for the superiority of their system of editing.
A widespread belief among nonscientists is that journal editors and their reviewers check authors' research firsthand and even repeat the research. In fact, journal editors do not routinely examine authors' scientific notebooks. Instead, they rely on peer reviewers' criticisms, which are based on the information submitted by the authors.
While editors and reviewers may ask authors for more information, journals and their invited experts examine raw data only under the most unusual circumstances.
In that respect, journal editors are like newspaper editors, who check the content of reporters' copy for facts and internal inconsistencies but generally not their notes. Still, journal editors have refused to call peer review what many others say it is a form of vetting or technical editing....
Many nonscientists perceive reviewers to be impartial. But the reviewers, called independent experts, in fact are often competitors of the authors of the papers they scrutinize, raising potential conflicts of interest.
Except when gaffes are publicized, there is little scrutiny of the quality of what journals publish....
Despite its flaws, scientists favor the system in part because they need to publish or perish. The institutions where the scientists work and the private and government agencies that pay for their grants seek publicity in their eagerness to show financial backers results for their efforts.
The public and many scientists tend to overlook the journals' economic benefits that stem from linking their embargo policies to peer review. Some journals are owned by private for-profit companies, while others are owned by professional societies that rely on income from the journals. The costs of running journals are low because authors and reviewers are generally not paid.
A few journals that not long ago measured profits in the tens of thousands of dollars a year now make millions, according to at least three editors who agreed to discuss finances only if granted anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak about finances.
Any influential system that profits from taxpayer-financed research should be held publicly accountable for how the revenues are spent. Journals generally decline to disclose such data.