Who Were the Sea Peoples?

I just received a request to referee a paper. I accepted (electronically) because the editors of the journal in question are good friends, and I want to help them whenever I can. But after accepting, I got access to the paper, and I found that the author cited me. In our brave new world in which one's value as a scholar is judged by "metrics," I now have a strong motivation to approve publication of this paper, since the value of one's own publications is often judged by how often they are cited. I hope I can avoid evaluating the paper based on the fact that "Hey, here is someone who cites me: they should be published!" But can I really do so? I don't know. And note: I was asked to referee in this case precisely because I was cited in the paper in question: since I was cited, I must know something about the topic being discussed. I only bring this all up to point out that the peer-reviewed system is far from perfect. I have no better suggestion...

Kevin Vallier asked the above question on Facebook. I answer with a qualified "yes." Of course an editor should never publish a lousy paper because he likes the author. But here is the sort of situation in which I think it is likely to help: Sue edits the Journal of Digestive Studies . She has asked both Mary and Fred to referee for her. Mary almost always says 'yes,' and when she does, she always submits a referee report in a timely fashion. Fred often says 'no,' and when he says 'yes,' he has to be nudged for months before he submits his report. Now, the same week, Sue receives paper for consideration from both Mary and Fred. Both papers contain the germ of a good idea. But both are a bit of a mess at present: the good idea is buried amidst a welter of irrelevancies. In their present state neither is publishable, but if the good idea was unearthed from its midden heap and made to shine, either might be accepted. If Sue merely identifies the goo...