As an academic, you are in the business of producing research. I know it might sound odd to call it a "business", but frankly, you get paid to do it, and most of you wouldn't do it if you didn't get paid, hence it is a business and you're selling a product (your research) to your clients (the rest of society) and you get paid a price for that product (grants and aid and donations and other types of support from governments and other institutions).
This means that there is a danger that your research output is driven by a self-serving bias. After all, the 'better' research you produce (as in, research that draws a lot of attention), the more of it you will sell and the more money you will make.
How do academics controls themselves for this bias, that may be occurring consciously or subconsciously?
One might say that peer-reviewing solves this exact problem, but I fear that all peer-reviewing accomplishes is moving the goalpost. Okay, so now the bias of the lone researcher is being controlled, but who controls the biases of the peers? After all, this bias is an industry-wide phenomenon. Your peers, the ones that review your research, have the exact same bias as you do, and are also interested in seeing your research be validated if it brings more attention to your field, a field which is obviously shared between you and your peers.
Hence the bias affects you all at the same time. Who is controlling that? Is there a 3rd party? If not, how do academics, as a group, control themselves?
Obviously, this question is more pertinent for less fact-based fields, so not for example mathematics, where if a wrong theorem is approved, it would be catastrophic and probably discovered soon enough, to the shame of all people involved. But for more experimental fields such as physics, medicine, etc., how do academics ensure that there isn't a cartel of researchers some where all (sub)consciously agreeing to promote research that advances their careers?