I am trying to ascertain certain things about history, and historical events are subject to debate and controversy.
"Event" isn't a common term in historiography. The idea that a constellation of behaviours can be summed up in a neat little bundle and assigned a fixed and undisputed meaning is counter-intuitive for both humanities and social science historians. In particular, "events" appear to be readily assigned "meanings," which most historians view even more suspiciously. (Except, of course, as the historical study of public history meanings themselves).
My question is whether the history professors, who are experts within a particular scope of human history, agree amongst themselves about what transpired. Is there a consensus?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Often consensuses are only realised as having previously existed when they are "revised."
Furthermore, in what kinds of publications do they present their findings? Scientists publish in research journals; where do historians publish?
Historians primarily publish research monographs ("books"), scholarly chapters in edited collections ("books" made up of chapters) and journal articles.
Are historical research papers conclusive, or are they debated?
Yes. Yes. You want to go to a "review article" on a topic to discover what debates and consensuses have emerged. Like "science," "historiography" is an ongoing process of the application of a method to a wide variety of potential subjects. It is a process more than an outcome.
Do historians follow a similar review process as the other fields?
Monographs tend to be read as project samples prior to a scholarly press accepting the contract. Book chapters are reviewed or sent to review by book editors prior to publication. Journal articles are reviewed prior to publication. Past findings are regularly (50 year scale is what I'd suggest) reworked and challenged.