I was wondering recently whether there needs to be a system to accompany peer review, which allows scientists/reviewers to declare their biases on whatever scie

I was wondering recently whether there needs to be a system to accompany peer review, which allows scientists/reviewers to declare their biases on whatever scientific controversy exists in their field. If a paper is published by a person or group that oppose the view of some influential experts, the writers shouldn't have to censor their paper in order to get it past review, but it should have to answer the criticisms of the opposing camp. Similarly, a paper shouldn't get a free pass just because it supports the reviewer's biases. Taking things a step further, it should be possible to anonymously stake reputation on specific sides of these controversies, so that wise contrarians can be vindicated with time (without necessarily risking your promotion opportunities), and institutions can lose reputation for hosting big egos who suppress opposing (but ultimately proven correct) views.