There is corruption potentially in all studies, the issue is some can only get "peer review" while many in the hard sciences require experimental confirmation.
Now this is a bad in some way comparison, but we are in the political forum.
A female insists that a sexual abuse happened decades ago.
Under peer review other females would see if there was anything in there that was clearly wrong.
Under the opposite they would need objective evidence, or at least testimony that it was correct.
Large difference, and many studies in the soft sciences have been proven to be questionable if not wrong.