> And if someone cannot get their paper published in a system that allows such results, then what can we reasonably assume about said rejected paper?

Nothing at all, really. Remember that Wegener (plate tectonics) couldn't get published for decades after his initial theoretical proposal, on the ground that so many geologists disagreed with him. In fact, his ideas were verified only after his death.

But the publication of an idea, and the scientific standing of an idea, aren't comparable states. Scientific publication is as much a business as it is a source of the best papers science has to offer.

And to go further, scientific persuasion doesn't really depend only on publication and dissemination.

Scientists in the historical record who are successful of achieiving significant theory change use about every means at their disposal not limited to just "consensus building" but also including underhanded tactics such as excluding opponents from professional appointments, conferences, access to data and equipment, etc.