Peer Review is considered by many to be the gold standard for evaluating science papers, but it comes at a price (click the image for the 2-minute video).

Consider also, Thomas Kuhn’s observation:

During the period of normal science, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher, contra Popper’s falsifiability criterion. As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science.