The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quali
ty or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to
publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist view
s of sceptics and dissident minorities. Mediocrity is thereby perpetuated,
with highly innovative science stifled by the conflict of interest and revi
ewer shortcomings underlying the review system. The effective court of appe
al should be the editor. Self-correction of review procedures is recommende
d by: (i) improving the editorial quality control of peer reviews; (ii) abo
lition of the cloak of secrecy and anonymity of reviewers; and (iii) active
encouragement of critical debate of unorthodox submissions.