User:Penbat/sham peer review as mobbing

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/521301

Comprehensive Study of Peer Review in California: Final Report JA Seago, R Benroth, MHAB McDougall… - 2008 ... Others use stronger language to describe sham peer review in medicine calling it “workplace mobbing” and allege that it is used to rid an entity of a troublemaker or to rid an “insider” physician of a competitor14. This is reiterated

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has a Web page listing numerous opinion pieces, presentations, news reports, and court causes related to sham peer review12. A physician from that organization opines that the sham process “begins in the minds of those who set out to destroy a targeted physician” (p. 3)13. Others use stronger language to describe sham peer review in medicine calling it “workplace mobbing” and allege that it is used to rid an entity of a troublemaker or to rid an “insider” physician of a competitor14. This is reiterated in a publication describing the peer review process as “misused, ineffective, and corrupt”11.

Huntoon LR. Editorial: The psychology of sham peer review. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. 2007; 12(1):3-4. 14. Westhues K. Sham peer review in medicine: Summary and links for researchers of workplace mobbing. http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/mobbing.htm. Accessed May 1, 2008. http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/mobbing.htm.

In medicine, sham peer reviews have been reconised by some as a manifestation of mobbing.

US neurologist Lawrence R. Huntoon defines it as an official corrective action done in bad faith, disguised to look like legitimate peer review. Hospitals use it to rid themselves of physicians who advocate too often or too vociferously for quality patient care and patient safety, and economic competitors frequently use it to eliminate unwanted competition.

His view is that the psychology of the attackers is a combination of the psychology of bullies and that of the lynch mob. The attacks are typically led by one or a few bullies who have gained positions of power over others and who enjoy exercising and abusing that power to attack and harm the vulnerable. Although there is always some improper motive that precipitates the attack, the attack itself often serves to distract attention from the bully’s own underlying shortcomings, deficiencies, insecurities, and cowardice.

Kenneth Westhues, University of Waterloo, considers sham peer reviews to be a particular technique of punishing, discrediting, and humiliating the target: the quasi-judicial procedure of peer review, whereby in response to one or more complaints, a hospital committee formally deems the target deficient or incompetent in some way, and decides on a penalty (like retraining, suspension, or dismissal).