The great majorityof material is the uncontroversial application of whatever model happens to be in vogue. Most of this appeals to a few, very narrow experts only, and is almost immediately forgotten. Indeed, most original psychiatric research from Australia is never quoted by later authors. Material of a speculative or philosophical nature often contains mistakes just because the editors don't look too closely at what is written as long as it appears to support the ruling paradigm. Supportive material will be published before critical material.
Some outrageous nonsense is published, but nobody seems to care.
And if Prof. K. doesn't approve of what Prof. Q. has to say, then she will simply ignore him. On the other side of the fence, there is a dearth of critical material in psychiatry, mainly because the standard of scholarship forced upon critical authors is repressive. Anonymous reviewers can say what they like, even make the most egregious mistakes or change their grounds as successive versions of the same paper are rejected. Subsequently, after his error was pointed out, he changed his ground but continued to advise the paper be rejected. If these were isolated examples, I would not bother repeating them but they are not.