Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Despite the near-universal acceptance of the benefits of a sound peer review process (PRP), the topic of peer review remains a source of controversy among surgeons. The current PRP is plagued by heterogeneity across different hospital and institutional systems. These inconsistencies, combined with a perceived lack of fairness inherent to the PRP in some institutions, led to concerns among practicing surgeons. In this review of the relevant literature on the PRP, we attempted to provide some context and insight into the history of the PRP, its role, its shortcomings, its potential abuses, and some key requirements for its successful execution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Richmond et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: