The editorial "Sham Peer Review: The Psychology of Obedience and Social Influence" by Lawrence R. Huntoon, M.D., Ph.D., explores the psychological mechanisms behind the manipulation and abuse of peer review processes in medical settings. Drawing on historical examples and Stanley Milgram's classic experiment, the article highlights how ordinary individuals can be influenced to commit acts of cruelty and injustice under the authority of others. In the context of sham peer review, this often involves the manipulation of physicians to destroy another's career through technical procedures and hearings, despite the broader consequences. The article emphasizes the importance of peer reviewers looking beyond technical procedures to the broader impact of their actions and suggests that ethical physicians should resist the pressure to conform and act responsibly. It also discusses the role of hypothesis-confirming bias and the need for ethical conduct and due process in peer review. Finally, it offers suggestions for victims of sham peer review to counteract the effects of social isolation and devaluation.The editorial "Sham Peer Review: The Psychology of Obedience and Social Influence" by Lawrence R. Huntoon, M.D., Ph.D., explores the psychological mechanisms behind the manipulation and abuse of peer review processes in medical settings. Drawing on historical examples and Stanley Milgram's classic experiment, the article highlights how ordinary individuals can be influenced to commit acts of cruelty and injustice under the authority of others. In the context of sham peer review, this often involves the manipulation of physicians to destroy another's career through technical procedures and hearings, despite the broader consequences. The article emphasizes the importance of peer reviewers looking beyond technical procedures to the broader impact of their actions and suggests that ethical physicians should resist the pressure to conform and act responsibly. It also discusses the role of hypothesis-confirming bias and the need for ethical conduct and due process in peer review. Finally, it offers suggestions for victims of sham peer review to counteract the effects of social isolation and devaluation.