Peer review is arguably necessary for effective communication amongst researchers. Authors, editors, and the public rely on peer review to ensure a first measure of trust in scientific communication. While peer review is considered to be integral in scholarly communication by most, its shortcomings are becoming evident. Former editor of JAMA and NEJM Drummond Rennie once said, "if peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market." Is this true? Does peer review, as it is done today, cause more harm than good?