INTRODUCTION: Peer review (PR) is the traditional model for improving and deciding about the scientific publications. It consists of sending the material received for publication to the experts who analyze its quality and made a constructive criticism so that the authors can improve it while advising the editor on his/her publication decision. DEVELOPMENT: An analysis is made of the situation of peer review based on its different characteristics, such as the peer's impartiality, equality, confidentiality and competence and their role in the decision making process on the acceptability of the manuscript and as an instrument for improvement of the articles. CONCLUSIONS: PR is more a culture than a method that can be evaluated. If it is the editor who makes the decision in a publication, it is really the editor who can evaluate the benefit of the process and know the grade of efficacy of the peer reviewers. It is true that the PR has disadvantages, such as creating officialism, that takes up time and resources and that may generate discouragement in some authors, however, it leads to improvement in the articles, correction of errors and alerts on distortions. The PR should be understood not only as a decision formula, but also as a way to improve the manuscripts placed at the service of the authors, regardless of whether the article is published or not.
INTRODUCTION: Peer review (PR) is the traditional model for improving and deciding about the scientific publications. It consists of sending the material received for publication to the experts who analyze its quality and made a constructive criticism so that the authors can improve it while advising the editor on his/her publication decision. DEVELOPMENT: An analysis is made of the situation of peer review based on its different characteristics, such as the peer's impartiality, equality, confidentiality and competence and their role in the decision making process on the acceptability of the manuscript and as an instrument for improvement of the articles. CONCLUSIONS: PR is more a culture than a method that can be evaluated. If it is the editor who makes the decision in a publication, it is really the editor who can evaluate the benefit of the process and know the grade of efficacy of the peer reviewers. It is true that the PR has disadvantages, such as creating officialism, that takes up time and resources and that may generate discouragement in some authors, however, it leads to improvement in the articles, correction of errors and alerts on distortions. The PR should be understood not only as a decision formula, but also as a way to improve the manuscripts placed at the service of the authors, regardless of whether the article is published or not.