Peer review is ultimately self correcting. It's not a single person or group doing the review, it's various people and groups throughout the community. That's why methodology makes up so much of a published paper; numerous other people will be replicating your research to determine if your conclusions are accurate. Sure, one or two folks might be in on a conspiracy to further some questionable findings, but it will eventually be discovered.
Hi Junior. How's it going?
Yeah, I agree that 'peer review' is ultimately self-correcting, but the operative word is 'ultimately'. And that's the worrisome part.
It's taking a long time to correct the biblical errors of the Catholic Church that were committed in the Dark to middle Ages. These errors have been extremely resistant to correction, at least amongst the average person to whom the accepted dogma doesn't come to him/her from a respected journal.
So, while the corrections are ultimately being made, it's the errors that remain imprinted on the formative conscious of the person who learned them (in a class or wherever) and then has gone on with his/her life and never revisited the subject.
You and I are the fortunate ones. On these topics, our curiousity knows no end. On other topics for which we have no curiousity however, I fear we are stuck with whatever we learned 20 years ago (or however long it may have been for you).
I don't think there's a good solution to these potential manipulations though. Ours is a world where a premium is placed on speed, innovation, and discovery. Often the quality of depth is at least partially sacrificed on that altar.