I'm not so sure they're as analgous as you might think. In this case, a central part of the controversy surrounds allegations (based on the leaked emails) that

I'm not so sure they're as analgous as you might think. In this case, a central part of the controversy surrounds allegations (based on the leaked emails) that the researchers at East Anglia were attempting to manipulate the peer review process itself. In my opinion, this is by far the worst part of the whole climategate fiasco. If you assume all their research and methods are solid, it is still inexcusable to try and prevent contradictory evidence from going into the literature. A good example of this is Barry Marshall's initial work on stomach ulcers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall). The common wisdom until the 1980's was that they were caused by spicy food and stress. Marshall and a colleague had isolated Helicobacter pylori from the gut of patients afflicted with stomach ulcers. They were unable to show the bacteria were the causative agent (a crucial point if you're alleging infection). Nevertheless, his initial paper was published. Subsequently, he actually drank a flask of the things to prove that they caused stomach ulcers (and later published those results). This wasn't 50 years ago either, it was only in 1984. His initial paper could have easily been spiked by the reviewers since extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But it made it through, even through it contradicted the position of the vast majority of physicians. I often wonder what would have happened if his peers had spiked his initial paper and labeled him a crazy 'stress caused ulcer denier' who should be marginalized for threatening the safety of patients.