The peer-review process in publishing scientific articles in health care is considered the gold standard, sacrosanct. Yet all who are involved with it know that it is highly imperfect, fraught with errors, biases and sometimes fraud. Yet, as pointed out in this article, the process itself has never been subjected to critical analysis. Dr. Adler, an experienced academic neurosurgeon, does so in this article with a fascinating suggestion for improvement.
Read: Adler 2012