What steps are taken to reduce cronyism in the peer-review process?

I was just wondering, because I've heard over and over again that
science is not a matter of a majority vote (see: NCSE's Project Steve)
and I'm wondering how, in the end, a majority vote could be avoided.
Suppose for a moment that scientists aren't the open-minded,
inquisitive, logical beings that they generally are. Instead, pretend
that they are the way that Creationists think of them: as stubborn,
protective of their own hypothesis, leftist-bent, secular-bent,
humanist-bent, anti-Christian, etc.

In that sort of environment, would peer review even matter? I mean, if
the editors are all snarling atheists, and the referees are all
snarling atheists, then can the peer-review process be trusted?

And suppose that the situation is not quite that extreme, but perhaps
70% of scientists are snarling atheists and 30% are benevolent
Creationists, and a Creationist submits a manuscript for review. Would
it be posssible for the atheist editor to deliberately pass the paper
out to like-minded referees and get the paper rejected?

And suppose that an atheist submits a paper for review, and it is
published. Suppose then that a Creationist sees some glaring mistakes
in the paper and writes a rebuttal. Then, suppose the rebuttal is
reviewed by an editor and then passed on to other atheists for review,
after which it is rejected.

The situation you would have here would be a de facto democracy, with
70% holding one opinion and, as a result, they are able to dominate and
control the peer-review process.

It seems that the only thing stopping this from becoming a democracy is
the honesty of the editors and referees themselves, and I'm wondering
if there are any measures put in place to help prevent cronyism in the
peer-review process. Are the referees chosen at random?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ED gets religion
    ... do the job the editors are *supposed* to be doing, ... The per-reviewed scientific journals do exactly this - referees are ... When I submitted my most recent comment to "Review of Scientific ... is essentially an application note for the Analog Devices, ADN8830, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: How did Einstein get published?
    ... was definitely not reviewed by anyone but the editors. ... I was refuting your phrase "editors and referees". ... For the record, in the paper, Einstein ... Even with peer review, some flaws get published. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What steps are taken to reduce cronyism in the peer-review process?
    ... (But not all scientists have such specific bents. ... Well, that's the whole point of peer review, to distribute the review over ... > the editors are all snarling atheists, and the referees are all ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What steps are taken to reduce cronyism in the peer-review process?
    ... > In that sort of environment, would peer review even matter? ... > the editors are all snarling atheists, and the referees are all ...
    (talk.origins)