A REVIEWER, in my opinion, has two obligations: one to the author of the article and the other to its potential reader. When conclusions drawn by the author appear at variance with the factual evidence or when the subject is controversial, the reviewer should indicate by objective editorial comment how and to what extent the opinion expressed in the article differs from the generally accepted beliefs of other plastic surgeons.
An article which expresses opinions contrary to those held by the reviewer, however, is in the nature of a tasty morsel which tempts him to dip his quill and write a strong denial based on personal experience. This may be unfair to some authors in that their work is judged and criticized without the opportunity for rebuttal.
In this review I will first express my personal views regarding certain practices in plastic surgery and then proceed to the usual summary
PEER LA. CONTRIBUTIONS TO PLASTIC SURGERY DURING 1945. Arch Otolaryngol. 1946;44(6):715–758. doi:10.1001/archotol.1946.00680060744007
Artificial Intelligence Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.