Try not to have a reviewer have to wait for anything. Choose a time that is convenient for the reviewer as well as for the firm. During fieldwork in an on-site peer review, the reviewer will inform the reviewed firm of any deficiencies noted during the peer review. A reviewed firm should not be surprised by any finding in the report or letter of comments. Because peer review is a subjective process, there may be differences of opinion between the reviewed firm and the reviewer as to whether a deficiency exists.
Many professional standards require the use of professional judgment.
A firm should not automatically assume the reviewer s interpretation is the correct one. Ask the reviewer to cite the applicable section of the professional standards that supports his or her conclusion and read the section to verify that the comment is applicable to the particular situation. The reviewed firm should respond in writing to the specific comments on the response section of the MFC form. Since MFC forms are read by the state society s technical reviewer and often by members of acceptance committees, the firm s response should present the reasons for disagreement or the circumstances that caused the deficiency. Such a response may not only cause the peer reviewer to change his or her mind, but may cause the acceptance committee to question the significance of the deficiency.