peer reviews

We have just commemorated something to do with World War One.  Our history is mostly derived from the letters sent back from the front.  We see naive boys and young men excited at the adventure of war.
There is talk now of re-writing that history.  Not because it is an untrue picture, but because it does not fit within the potential writers world view.
I remember reading an article in the New Scientist about peer reviews.  They are the gold standard of reviews but according to the article they are open to abuse.  Often the person doing the research has a predetermined outcome they want to achieve.  Hundreds of results of their tests may be contrary to their view and a few may confirm it.  It is those few they put up for review.
Those conducting peer reviews are not rewarded, so doing the review may be only an impost.  They don’t care so they sign off on the review.  A course of action then becomes standard practice based solely on preconception rather than the overwhelming evidence.  By the time the miss domineer is discovered, incredible damage may have been done.
There are countries in the world giving out what they want their people to believe.  It is why I think satellites and radios are so feared by those in power.  They give an alternative view and one which may not be palatable to those trying to achieve what they want.
It may be wishful thinking, but I am happy to have my life reviewed – not based on preconceptions but on overwhelming evidence.
​