http://andrewgelman.com/2016/02/01/peer-review-make-no-damn-sense/
I think that patients (and other family members/similar) can add new and useful perspectives that can be missed by reviewers.
When does peer review make no damn sense?
Posted by Andrew on 1 February 2016, 10:55 am
Disclaimer: This post is not peer reviewed in the traditional sense of being vetted for publication by three people with backgrounds similar to mine. Instead, thousands of commenters, many of whom are not my peers—in the useful sense that, not being my peers, your perspectives are different from mine, and you might catch big conceptual errors or omissions that I never even noticed—have the opportunity to point out errors and gaps in my reasoning, to ask questions, and to draw out various implications of what I wrote. Not “peer reviewed”; actually peer reviewed and more; better than peer reviewed.
Peer review has its place. But peer reviewers have blind spots. If you want to really review a paper, you need peer reviewers who can tell you if you’re missing something within the literature—and you need outside reviewers who can rescue you from groupthink.
Peer review is subject to groupthink, and peer review is subject to incentives to publishing things that the reviewers are already working on.
I think that patients (and other family members/similar) can add new and useful perspectives that can be missed by reviewers.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/
Andrew Gelman is a professor of statistics and political science and director of the Applied Statistics Center at Columbia University.