Me and roommate were discussing peer reviews and how the process is definitely necessary, but also contributes to the elitist nature of some science. In a similar manner to how it was brought up during lecture, we both expressed annoyance that scientific papers that are written to glorify the head researches ego rather than to just discuss the findings and the facts. At one point my roommate laughed out loud at the peer viewed paper she was reading for her class. The author, who was a friend of her professor, had cited an “incredible piece of research” to support the researches claim, and it turned out the “incredible research” was the authors own old project. The fact of the matter is that people have implicit bias towards a friend rather than a stranger and towards themselves, especially if there ego can be given a boost. I am not saying that papers should not be peer reviewed, it is an extremely important process that allows ones work to be viewed by another. I am rather suggesting that neither the author nor the reviewer should know who the other is. And that when ever we read anything we need to consider our own bias along with the authors, take everything with a grain of salt.
