Peer review prior to publication of medical data dates back to the 9th century CE, but has only really gained steam in the past 70 or 80 years. Ideally, peer review would serve as an initial filter for data that enters a permanent public scientific record. But peer review is not without flaws. In the second installment of the BrainWaves segment, “It’s not over yet…”, we discuss publication as a potential source of bias, and highlight the reasons why it should not be the final step of the peer review process. Produced by James E. Siegler. Music courtesy of Cullah, Lee Rosevere, John Bartmann, Kevin McLeod, and Jon Watts. Sound effects by Mike Koenig and Daniel Simion. BrainWaves' podcasts and online content are intended for medical education only and should not be used for clinical decision making. Be sure to follow us on Twitter @brainwavesaudio for the latest updates to the podcast. REFERENCES Bingham C. Peer review on the Internet: A better class of conversation. Lancet. 1998;351:S10-14. Godlee F, Gale CR and Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:237-40. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E and Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;287:2784-6. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S and Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2007:MR000016. Ware M. Peer review: Benefits, perspectives, and alternatives: Publishing Research Consortium; 2008. Mandavilli A. Peer review: Trial by Twitter. Nature. 2011;469:286-7. Haffar S, Bazerbachi F and Murad MH. Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review. Mayo Clinic proceedings. 2019;94:670-676.