Peer reviewed scientific publishing is critical for communicating important findings, interpretations and theories in any branch of science. While the value of peer review is rarely doubted, much concern is being raised about the possible biases in the process. I argue here that most of the biases originate in the evolved innate tendency of every player to optimize one’s own cost benefits. Different players in the scientific publishing game have different cost-benefit optima. There are multiple conflicts between individual optima and collective goals. An analysis of the cost-benefit optima of every player in the scientific publishing game shows how and why biases originate. By continuing with the current publishing trend, the global distribution of the scientific community would be increasingly clustered. Publication biases by gender, ethnicity, reputation, conformation and conformity will be increasingly common and revolutionary concepts increasingly difficult to publish. For a better future of science, it is necessary to design a publication system based on principles of human behaviour rather than on some ideological assumptions. If a system is designed in such a way that the conflicts between individual optima and collective goal are minimized, if everyone cares only for his/her personal benefits, biases would get minimized automatically and the progress towards the collective goal would be faster and smoother. Changing towards such a system might prove difficult unless a critical mass of authors take an active role to revolutionize scientific publishing.