[Peer review is not based on evidence, but on tradition and good intentions].

: Ideally, peer review is a method for guaranteeing and improving scientific work, but in terms of evidence we do not know much about what peer review is, what it does or how it could do better. There have been several attempts to improve the current system, but neither blinding, anonymisation, nor training of reviewers seem to make a big difference. The traditional "pre-publication" system seems to be based on tradition and good intentions rather than evidence. "Post-publication" review, which allows all members of the biomedical community to evaluate a certain work, may be an effective supplement to the current system.