title: Point/Counterpoint. Peer reviews of medical physics practices often yield little information because the AAPM has not been proactive in developing appropriate peer-review guidelines.
authors.affiliation: Tri-State Regional Cancer Center, Ashland, Kentucky 41101, USA. mgossman@tsrcc.com
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Gossman
authors.forename: Per
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Halvorsen
authors.forename: Colin G
authors.initials: CG
authors.lastname: Orton
mesh_terms: D001244:Association; D006283:Health Physics / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D010380:Peer Review / Q000592:standards*; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D011361:Professional Competence / Q000592:standards*; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care / Q000592:standards*; D018787:Radiation Oncology / Q000592:standards*; D014481:United States