Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review

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.