Here's a good example of peer review at work.
This study was published, proudly proclaiming massive IQ gains by blacks adopted into white middle class homes:
http://archive.is/slTYGRichard Lynn offered a rebuttal, which completely demolished the claims made in the papers:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0160289694900507The scientist behind the paper admitted her fault, that she deliberately biased her conclusions to meet the expectation of her liberal colleagues:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289699800051>“The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions”With her research actually supporting her ideological opposition, she eventually pulled the paper off the web, quit the scientific profession in disgrace, and is now working as a coffee-grower in Hawaii
