The replication crisis in psychology suggests that social science findings are often the product of accumulated biases. These biases start with the scholar involved and the numerous types of decisions necessary to study an issue. Bias is then compounded at journals, where editors make a series of choices over reviewers and overall assessments. Finally, reviewers have their own biases.....which seem to be infinite in number.
This is not to say that good, reproducible, research does get done--it does. Look at the research on IQ. If reproducible results is a sign of methodological rigor and valid findings.....IQ wins the day. It is to say, however, that a lot of social science research is influenced by sets of biases. Sometimes these biases are easy to identify and sometimes they are not.
Nonetheless, here are a couple of studies I found on certain biasing factors as well as a link to story on how business journals are now trying to manage these biases.
Confirmation Bias In Social Work Journals: http://sth.sagepub.com/content/15/1/9.short
Positive Outcome Bias in Peer Review
Business Journals Respond
John Paul Wright and Matt DeLisi
Professors of Crime and Criminology