According to an editorial, to many, this result might not be surprising, as little agreement exists on what constitutes effective peer review or the skills required to provide it, and there is little evidence that peer review does what many think it should do—ensure the quality of research. It notes that although peer review is highly regarded by researchers and considered essential for publication of research it has many flaws. It points to one study of 607 peer reviewers for The BMJ which detected only one third of major errors inserted into test trial reports, despite training, whilst in another, 260 readers missed 95% of the 39 discrepancies in a clinical trial report. It therefore suggests that peer review itself is of questionable value and could offer false reassurance. It calls for a system-wide strategy to manage and mitigate the influence of organisational or individual conflicts on clinical practice.
Another paper in the BMJ provided evidence that gifts from pharmaceutical companies to French GPs might influence prescribing. It found that those GPs who received no gifts prescribed cheaper generic drugs and had better drug prescription efficiency indicators than those in receipt of gifts.