Does peer review work?

"I have frequently done peer reviews of medical articles. I have disagreed vehemently with peer reviews that I have received." - Dr. Robert M. Centor.

Peer review has many problems. We review articles without compensation. Because of that, often one decides not to review an article, just because it is inconvenient.

While we like to think that evaluating a scientific article is simply a logical matter, I can easily argue that I bring biases to my reviews. I have received reviews that did not reflect my science, but rather how the reviewer considers the subject matter.

Much science creates controversy. Whenever there is controversy, people (for after all reviewers are people) take sides. We all know that when we submit an article, we run the risk of having the wrong reviewer. I suspect that I have been the wrong reviewer for some articles. Read the article online

The process of scientific publishing could be described in terms of such tensions and conflicts, and research into peer review will doubtless draw them out wouldn't expect it to provide any quick fix however, although I like Emiliani's suggest for the absolute review system (ARS), in which authors review their own work, on the presumption that they are the ones most familiar with it. Read the letter to the editors online