The term "peer review" is widely misused. For a peer reviewed scientific journal, the author does not get to select the reviewers, nor does a grant applicant get to select grant reviewers. That is the editor’s choice or the grantor’s choice.

An author who asks a colleague to review an article or a book, or an investigator who asks a colleague or panel of colleagues to review a case is undertaking a useful exercise, but that is not really “peer review” in the sense that most people understand.

Unless there is a mechanism for hiding the identity of the original investigator or at least the identity of the reviewer, there is a strong impetus to “confirm” or “concur.” Proceeding openly invites controversy. “Going along” is the easy road, and if you value your career, sometimes the only road.

What is the motivation of one LEO when asked to review the work of another LEO who truly believes that he has apprehended a dangerous felon? His motivation may well be to point out weaknesses, but not to question the conclusion—only to "help" the case.

While I believe in the value of peer-review, it currently does not happen in even a loose sense. I think that the internal technical review, or even the “invited” external review needs to be called something else, because the term "peer-review" lends more credibility to the process than it merits.

John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]