Specifically, peer pressure is typically viewed as the influence a social group has on a person's attitudes, values and behavior. Influenced 'peers' allow themselves to feel 'pressured' in order to be accepted and/or valued by the group they want to belong to.
Consequently, a person might do something they wouldn't normally or otherwise do - they might (for example) adopt and/or change their behavior so as to conform to the dominant group or follow the most prevalent and fashionable views.
It isn't difficult to see how peer review might run counter to the avowed ethos of academia - which puts a premium on independent and critical thought. Academics appear to be just as susceptible to peer pressure as traditional high risk groups (like children or teenagers).
It is important, of course, that academics follow norms so as to meet exacting standards for scholarship - but the peer review process threatens to normalize social conformity and/or sanction confirmation biases in the pursuit of truth.
So, to what extent - or in what ways - does peer pressure influence your own research or thinking?
thanks
ps
an amusing video - don't let it influence your response!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-1aVVEKep0
Hi Steven,
when making a review I am not influenced by peer pressure. Ethics & Complicance should always come first.
Although I am absolutely in favour of the concept of peer review in terms of ensuring overall integrity of the scientific process, for example, ensuring the scientific method was followed, etc., as well as another pair of eyes, so to speak, to check one's work, peer review seems very much to be more about certain group of people controlling different academic disciplines. This seems perhaps a bit more prevalent in the humanities and social sciences, as it is a bit more difficult to do where hard results are available as in the pure sciences.
The problem is that peer reviewers, especially for the "so-called prestigious journals that everyone wants to be in," have the ability to shape the profession and can reject something simply because they don't like it (although they'll give reasons for it). Then those so-called top journals and their supporters attack the last -ranked journals that may actually employ authentic, appropriate peer review, calling them nasty words such as predatory and fake. That poisons the well against a those journals, either from publishing in them or from accepting them for tenure and promotion at a university – and it keeps the (often self-proclaimed) top journals in control. And it's all under the guise of democracy in the profession. Yes, of course there are truly predatory and fake journals, and those are highly unethical. But, calling a journal that isn't on your own list of top journals fake or predatory is about is stupid is calling someone a Nazi just because you don't like them. What is this in academia? Are we still in high school?
I figure this game out many years ago when I was still in graduate school, and from then on I simply decided that I was interested in doing my research and having it legitimately published – but I did not care about playing the games of a lot of the journals. Consequently, I have been quite a lot happier in my career! Sadly I seem to be in the minority, with most desperately seeking the approval of peer reviewers and shaping their research to satisfy what they think peer reviewers might want. Who needs the stress? I certainly don't.
While I have never thought of peer review in this context, I can see that it is a possibility. The genesis and focus of peer review to avoid poor or fraudulent research findings from being published or presented. However, I can see that a secondary impact might be peer pressure. If peer review is being used properly, that is a good thing as it would be "pressuring" scientists to do good and legitimate research.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction