> In peer review, if a small clique of authors reviewed each-other's articles favorably, while ignoring, and being ignored, by the rest of their field, that wou

> In peer review, if a small clique of authors reviewed each-other's articles favorably, while ignoring, and being ignored, by the rest of their field, that would be ethically problematic. The comparison to peer review is perfect, because exactly this happens across many areas of research. Any area where the pool of potential reviewers is small enough that everyone (sort of) knows everyone else, the process tends to get corrupted by concerns over personal networks, careers, grant funding, etc. etc. Much as prestigious book review cliques get corrupted by networks, careers, access to publishers, etc. etc.