In my experience there is a lot of variance between research fields and even very specific adjacent subfields in how abrasive and star-focussed the process is.
I have to agree with this. The stories I've heard just don't match my own experience from either the reviewer-reviewee perspective. Chemistry (esp Biochem) seems especially nasty for reasons I don't understand (maybe the money gradient is really steep?), while the engineering and math fields were pretty reasonable.
In math and physics arXiv has made a big difference, and the prime focus is really on making publishing much less influenced by the money-men (Elsevier etc). Fame still has an effect, but when the respect of your peers is most important (few outside even realize what you're working on), that gets tempered by disdain at dumbing-down. Writing for a mass audience and/or high school etc is really hard.
