When they are they don't last long as a rule. If they publish an article that demonstrates a new process that revolutionizes a manufacturing method now being employed by one of his own advertisers or sponsors they may withdraw their financial contributions to the publication. No one likes to be unemployed so there is a temptation to not publish. The Peer Review process then becomes an excuse and an easy way out of the quandary. Peer Review, for some of the reasons given above, is almost a contradiction in terms.
Many people have peers - except the truly original thinker and doer.
His paper is the one that should be published assuming it is relevant, accurate and honest. But by virtue of his original thinking he probably doesn't even have a true peer. Jesus, Socrates, Galileo, Tesla and Keely are just a few. Only they know the pain and suffering experienced by such arrogant, self-centered and unjust condemnations. On the other hand Peer Review has saved us from countless frauds and other wastes of time, effort and money by carefully culling the less desirable expressions of pseudo-science, etc.