I have again been reading "Tea with Sir William Osler" by Sir David Weatherall.1 You solemnly say, "This article has been peer reviewed." Who does a peer review of a delightful fantasy by a Regius Professor of Physic? Other Regius professors?
The reviewers missed one statement. Near the top of page 839, Sir David refers to "the marketplace-orientated health care system of North America." This is incorrect. The Canadian health care system is based on government funding.
It makes me wonder: I can see the object of peer review for scientific papers, but what about for a splendid flight of the imagination? Is this type of review a sort of imprimature from a holy office? A statement of correctness?
Appendix 1
[Editor's note]
The article was inadvertently sent to 2 intrepid Oslerians, who graciously went where no reviewer has gone before. Our admission of this fact was also inadvertent.
Reference
- 1.