I doubt anybody is actually surprised. The question is what does it mean and what if anything should be done about it. It cuts both ways. People with mediocre ideas will get their chums with the same mediocre ideas to support their papers. But if you have a genuinely original idea if you cannot choose at least some of the referees you are almost certain to get referees who either do not understand your work or as competitors are very keen to trash it. The practice of allowing authors to choose some of the referees was based on an understanding of that second situation. For a sociologist writing a trivial study like this to say it should be abolished is just an indication that that sociologist probably has very little insight into the real situation. Peer review is pretty much rubbish anyway so why bother arguing about this sort of thing. Why not have papers published by the academic institution where the work was done, with open post-publication review and discussion? You don't actually need referees.
