Even well-respected journals fall victim to the halo effect.
In a study on peer review practices of learned journals Peters and Ceci 1982 found the following example of the halo effect in action.
They selected 12 well-known journals of psychology and to each one they sent an article to be considered for publication. These articles are routinely checked by two authorities on the particular field as well as the editor. The results: in 8 out of the 12 cases the articles were deemed unworthy of publication and were marked up heavily with comments and critiques of techniques, method, etc..
Out of 16 ‘evaluators’ and 8 editors who (presumably) read them, not a single one had a different view. (In 3 out of the 4 cases, when the articles were not deemed unworthy of publication the journal realized they had already published that paper.)
You are probably thinking that not all articles submitted to a reputable journal are up to par. This is true. However, in this case these particular articles had already been published by the very same journals. The only thing that had changed were the names of the authors and their universities (eminent university professors—world experts in their field became no-names). Harvard become Catacho University (or something to that effect).
Source: Peer review practices or psychological journals: the fate of
published articles, submitted again