That is 100% true, but that isn't a fair comparison.
Peer review should be open, scientists shouldn't be allowed to choose who reviews/doesn't review their papers, and the process by which selection is done needs to be more rigorous.
My suggestion, open it up to everyone in the field and make sure that the reviewers are identified. Anonymous peer review has the same effect that anonymous posting on internet forums has, people become e-thugs or just say things that they shouldn't ever say because they know the reader doesn't know who they are.
This sounds like it doesn't happen, but you would be surprised that the stuff that happens behind closed doors. Scientists are people, people are flawed (which is fine), but that shouldn't hold back scientific discoveries.
Peer review should be open, scientists shouldn't be allowed to choose who reviews/doesn't review their papers, and the process by which selection is done needs to be more rigorous.
My suggestion, open it up to everyone in the field and make sure that the reviewers are identified. Anonymous peer review has the same effect that anonymous posting on internet forums has, people become e-thugs or just say things that they shouldn't ever say because they know the reader doesn't know who they are.
This sounds like it doesn't happen, but you would be surprised that the stuff that happens behind closed doors. Scientists are people, people are flawed (which is fine), but that shouldn't hold back scientific discoveries.