Sad as it is, I think some reviewers turn down innovative papers because, if what the papers purport is true, they will overturn their own careers. The lab I worked in turned up solid evidence of an increase in binding capacity of certain neuroreceptors that didn’t require an increase in the number of neuroreceptors. This flew against established dogma. Some people at presentations of this data at conferences became extremely angry. One guy wadded up a program and threw it at the screen and stormed out yelling that, if true, this would wreck people’s lives (ie, overturn their careers based on the dogma). Reviewers would say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” ignoring the fact that the proof was even more solid than the proof the dogma was founded on back in the days of the infancy of this research.
Sobering.
But where is the “Science” in the (liberal-reviewing-liberal) world of gov. funded universities preaching dogma?
That’s quite a story, but all too believable.
Scientists are just as biased as anyone else but they seem to think that they are immune to bias.
Anytime someone doubts a scientific conclusion the scientist with an agenda points back to “peer review” as the response which cannot be questioned. But as you point out, peer review is actually of limited value.