Less one think that the culture of science is never corrupted, consider my experience with the most important scientific publication, Science Magazine.
Excerpt from Brain size
"Publishing the results turned out to be a problem. In February 1979 we sent it to Science Magazine, which has a very wide readership , but it was rejected for publication. There was only one reviewer who said that "the paper contains no original data" and "the results of the analysis do not lead to any conclusions about why there is such a relationship."
"We then sent it to the American Journal of Physiology where it was published in 1981, but it was lost there because very few people referred to it for the next 25 years. Instead, Science Magazine published in 1983 a much inferior paper, based in part on our study, which is often cited instead of us. It would seem that the reviewer stole our ideas and published them himself (something that happens all too often in science!). As of 2006, according to the Science Citation Index, our paper had been cited 35 times while the paper by the other author in Science had been cited 95 times."
I suppose this was a simple case of corruption, which occurs more often than one imagines in the world of scientific publication. Fortunately, after 2006 the tide turned and by 2022 our paper was cited somewhere every week.
Excerpt from Estrus
"As always seems to be the case when one makes an important scientific discovery, it was difficult to publish our results. First they were rejected by Science Magazine when the reviewer said that "in this controversial field, the data and conclusions have to be cast iron." I remarked that this sounded like the old fashioned "chastity belt" that women were forced to wear. We appealed the rejection through Neal Miller but without success."
How to explain this? Jealousy, prudery?
In this case a brief version of my research was accepted for publication by Science. As for the long version with full detail, it as refused by the Journal of Neurophysiology (jealousy?), and eventually published, thanks to my friendship with Giusseppe Morruzz, in the Archives Italiennes de Biologie
Excerpt from Seville Statement Newletter
" . . . endorsement by the American Psychological Association (APA). . . was accomplished in the summer of 1987. Unfortunately, as I describe in my article on the Seville Statement in the Journal of Peace Research, (see http://www.culture-of-peace.info/ssov/title-page.html) despite our best efforts the mass media, including Science magazine refused to cover the event at the APA. "
Excerpt from article in Journal of Peace Research
"As it became obvious that most of the press was not going to attend the press conference, we drafted a 'letter to the editor' which was sent to the New York Times, Nature, and Science. The news editor of Science had been personally invited to cover the press conference but said that it was 'not newsworthy'. The letter called attention to the Seville Statement and its message and was signed by the presidents of the APA, the American Anthropological Association (which had also endorsed), and representatives of the International Council of Psychologists, Psychologists for Social Responsibility, International Society for Research on Aggression, and Society for Psychological Study of Social Issues. In response, we never received acknowledgements from the New York Times or Nature, and only a form letter of rejection from Science. Contacted by telephone, the letters' editor at Science said that the letter was 'too political'. This was despite the fact that at that time many political letters and news articles were being published by Science about Soviet treatment of scientists who wished to emigrate."
How to explain this? Someday, when the files of the CIA are opened and distributed, much as those of the KGB were opened and distributed with the fall of the Soviet Union, I expect that we will find a CIA operative was installed as a censor in Science Magazine.