The peer review paradigm in our system of professional self-regulation is a complementary evaluation procedure - and as imperfect as - bibliometrics. The application of peer review depends on the journal's aims and circumstances and its results should always be contextualized, especially given the current cult of considering the journal of publication more important than the article's content and message. Participation in the peer review processes is usually altruistic and requires that certain rules of courtesy and good practice be followed, one of the main problems being conflicts of interest. peer review processes are expensive and show scant reproducibility. The system is highly subjective, conservative, and prone to bias and is generally unable to detect fraud. However, effective alternatives are lacking. Consequently, peer review procedures should be examined in greater depth and its application in optimal conditions - and based on the scarce evidence available - should be encouraged.