Pire-review is a pun. “Pire” is a French homonym of “peer” and means “worst” or, here: “very badly”
Michael Siegel (24 June 2008): "There are four important implications to this story [...] Second, it reveals the increasing investigator bias in tobacco control articles these days. This is a disturbing trend to me. It suggests that the peer review system is not working particularly well for tobacco control. I think perhaps part of the problem is that the articles are being send to the same cadre of reviewers, all of whom are sharing the same bias towards favorable results"
"[...] Amazingly, not only the first WHO report, supposed to have been intensively peer-reviewed, contains serious errors but also the second one . Also, both reports contain direct or indirect references to absolutely non-peer-reviewed materials (e.g. popular press). In a recent Cochrane review, strangely similar in its form and substance (incl. errors) to the WHO report , the authors avoid citing appropriate references, including the WHO 84 page second report on shisha smoking ."
 Chaouachi K. WHO and Peer-Review Standards in Studies on Hookah Smoking. The Lancet Early Online Publication 2007 (29 Oct). In reply to Dr Douglas Bettcher, Dir. WHO/TFI a.i.'s comment: Bettcher D. WHO Response to Use of evidence in WHO recommendations. The Lancet Early Online Publication 2007 (10 Sept).
 WHO-EMRO (World Health Organisation - Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office) and ESPRI (Egyptian Smoking Prevention Research Institute). Shisha Hazards Profile "Tobacco Use in Shisha - Studies on Waterpipe Smoking in Egypt". Cairo, 14 March 2007. ISBN: 978-92-9021-569-1. 84 pages. Prepared by Senior editors: Mostafa K. MOHAMED, Christopher A. LOFFREDO, Ebenezer ISRAEL et al.
 Maziak W, Ward K, Eissenberg T. Interventions for waterpipe smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Oct 17;(4):CD005549.
John POLITO, Abrupt Cessation Program Director; Consistency - science for sale ? (May 18, 2003) "What I do know is that science, not financial interests, should be defining terms and writing rules, and that peer-review and oversight is in need of more than a band-aid."