Peer Review Problems: Is Science Truly Objective?

By Lewis Loflin | Published May 27, 2025

Peer review is often hailed as the gold standard of scientific rigor, ensuring that only high-quality research sees the light of day. Yet, its objectivity is under scrutiny. A 2022 Nature study (Carl et al., 2022) highlights scientists’ strong progressive leanings, shaped by academic norms like shared knowledge and universalism. When the same left-leaning academic elite controls peer review, can science remain impartial? This article explores the flaws in peer review and their impact on public trust.

Who Controls Peer Review?

Peer review relies on journal editors, typically senior academics, to select reviewers based on expertise. However, these editors often come from elite universities where 60-70% of faculty identify as liberal or progressive (Gross & Simmons, 2014). This creates an insular system where reviewers, drawn from the same academic circles, share similar ideological leanings. The Nature study notes that scientists’ norms—such as "communism" (shared research ownership) and "universalism" (transcending cultural boundaries)—align with progressive values, potentially biasing the selection process. Editors may, consciously or not, favor reviewers who reinforce prevailing academic narratives, sidelining dissenting or conservative perspectives.

Consequences of Bias

A homogeneous reviewer pool can skew scientific output. Research challenging progressive orthodoxy—such as studies questioning aspects of climate policy or gender identity—often faces harsher scrutiny or rejection, not always due to quality but because of ideological misalignment (Smith, 2006, on publication bias). This gatekeeping erodes public trust, as only 30% of Americans have high confidence in scientists for policy decisions (Pew Research, 2020). When peer-reviewed science shapes public policy, the perception of bias becomes a lightning rod for skepticism, especially among traditionalists who value independent scrutiny over collectivist frameworks.

Exclusion of non-academic voices, such as private-sector scientists or independent researchers, limits diversity of thought.
Anonymous peer review lacks transparency, making it hard to challenge potential biases.
Controversial topics, like social science on gender, are often seen as activism, not science, by skeptical publics.

Solutions for Fairness

Reforming peer review is essential to restore objectivity and trust. Open peer review, where reviewer identities and comments are public, could increase transparency. Diversifying reviewer pools to include private-sector scientists, independent scholars, or even community stakeholders would broaden perspectives. Journals could also adopt randomized reviewer selection to reduce editorial bias. These steps would align peer review with the public’s demand for accountability, ensuring science serves society rather than a narrow academic elite.

Diagram of the peer review process showing author, editor, and reviewer roles.

Peer Review Issue	Impact on Objectivity
Homogeneous Reviewer Pool	Favors progressive narratives, marginalizes dissenting views.
Lack of Transparency	Hides potential biases, erodes public trust.
Elite Academic Control	Excludes non-academic or conservative perspectives.

Conclusion

Peer review, while essential, is not infallible. Its control by a progressive academic elite, as highlighted in the Nature study, risks undermining scientific objectivity and alienating the public. By embracing transparency, diversity, and broader inclusion, peer review can better reflect the skepticism and accountability valued by classical liberals and traditionalists. Science must earn trust through openness, not demand it through authority.

Media bias and closed discussions: