So, how do you persuade a group of people who don't like the idea to review your work objectively?
Scientists can (and must when reviewing) deal with process and factual matters, rather than beauty context or personal feelings. There is always some room for interpretation, some aspect of personal feelings. But, if this is science, rather than Eng Lit, positive or negative comments can be justified and that justification critiqued by third parties. Also, contrary to what seems to be a prevailing opinion in many places, most scientists are genuinely interested in the truth, and when given papers to review try to do so objectively: easier for them to do that than for somone whose life work is validated by a positive experiment and unrealised by a negative one.