The text explores the psychological mechanisms behind obedience and social influence, drawing parallels between the Milgram experiment and the phenomenon of sham peer review in medicine. It highlights how ordinary individuals may comply with authority figures, even when acting against their moral instincts. The Milgram experiment demonstrated that 65% of participants were willing to administer the maximum level of shock to a learner, despite the learner's pleas and suffering, due to authority pressure. This obedience was influenced by factors such as proximity, the devaluation of the victim, and the diffusion of responsibility. In the context of sham peer review, similar dynamics occur as physicians may be manipulated into harming another physician's career, often under the guise of professional duty. The choreographer, typically a hospital administrator, exerts pressure on peer review panels, encouraging them to act against the targeted physician. This process is often influenced by hypothesis-confirming bias, where evidence is selectively interpreted to support pre-existing beliefs about the physician's guilt. The text emphasizes the ethical responsibilities of peer reviewers, urging them to consider the broader consequences of their actions and to resist manipulation. It also highlights the importance of due process and the need for physicians to critically evaluate evidence and not blindly accept authority's views. The conclusion stresses that participating in sham peer review is a form of professional misconduct, and ethical physicians should hold perpetrators accountable. The text draws on psychological research to underscore the dangers of blind obedience and the importance of maintaining ethical standards in medical practice.The text explores the psychological mechanisms behind obedience and social influence, drawing parallels between the Milgram experiment and the phenomenon of sham peer review in medicine. It highlights how ordinary individuals may comply with authority figures, even when acting against their moral instincts. The Milgram experiment demonstrated that 65% of participants were willing to administer the maximum level of shock to a learner, despite the learner's pleas and suffering, due to authority pressure. This obedience was influenced by factors such as proximity, the devaluation of the victim, and the diffusion of responsibility. In the context of sham peer review, similar dynamics occur as physicians may be manipulated into harming another physician's career, often under the guise of professional duty. The choreographer, typically a hospital administrator, exerts pressure on peer review panels, encouraging them to act against the targeted physician. This process is often influenced by hypothesis-confirming bias, where evidence is selectively interpreted to support pre-existing beliefs about the physician's guilt. The text emphasizes the ethical responsibilities of peer reviewers, urging them to consider the broader consequences of their actions and to resist manipulation. It also highlights the importance of due process and the need for physicians to critically evaluate evidence and not blindly accept authority's views. The conclusion stresses that participating in sham peer review is a form of professional misconduct, and ethical physicians should hold perpetrators accountable. The text draws on psychological research to underscore the dangers of blind obedience and the importance of maintaining ethical standards in medical practice.