"The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.Check out this article. Not the only result you get when you google "peer review scandals", by the way.
That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: "It's about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about.""
Not necessarily corruption or deliberate lying from the scientists, as it says that the issue is not about fraud, but the issue of replication. Granted, one should wait before announcing something is scientific fact for a few years after the discovery until you have enough replications. I agree that the culture of discovery can lead to hasty findings (ahem, that cold fusion debacle) and is toxic in general, but to call it corruption would be a stretch in my opinion. However, everything that I discussed in the scientific literature in this discussion has been replicated multiple times. We aren't talking about breaking new grounds with medicine or similar topics where the science can be quite shaky as replication is not happening fast enough.
And I've looked at the other scandals. The ones where fake peer reviews have been discovered have been retracted and the journals cleaned up. It's a problem, but not significant enough to discredit the robustness of scientific journals.