The exponential increase in the number of submissions, further accelerated by generative AI, and the decline in the availability of experts are burdening the peer review process. This has led to high unethical desk rejection rates, a growing appeal for the publication of unreviewed preprints, and a worrying proliferation of predatory journals. The idea of monetarily compensating peer reviewers has been around for many years; maybe, it is time to take it seriously as one way to save the peer review process. Here, I argue that paying reviewers, when done in a fair and transparent way, is a viable solution. Like the case of professional language editors, part-time or full-time professional reviewers, managed by universities or for-profit companies, can be an integral part of modern peer review. Being a professional reviewer could be financially attractive to retired senior researchers and to researchers who enjoy evaluating papers but are not motivated to do so for free. Moreover, not all produced research needs to go through peer review, and thus persuading researchers to limit submissions to their most novel and useful research could also help bring submission volumes to manageable levels. Overall, this paper reckons that the problem is not the peer review process per se but rather its function within an academic ecosystem dominated by an unhealthy culture of \'publish or perish\'. Instead of reforming the peer review process, academia has to look for better science dissemination schemes that promote collaboration over competition, engagement over judgement, and research quality and sustainability over quantity.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: While statistical analysis plays a crucial role in medical science, some published studies might have utilized suboptimal analysis methods, potentially undermining the credibility of their findings. Critically appraising analytical approaches can help elevate the standard of evidence and ensure clinicians and other stakeholders have trustworthy results on which to base decisions. The aim of the present study was to examine the statistical characteristics of original articles published in Peruvian medical journals in 2021-2022.
METHODS: We performed a methodological study of articles published between 2021 and 2022 from nine medical journals indexed in SciELO-Peru, Scopus, and Medline. We included original articles that conducted analytical analyses (i.e., association between variables). The statistical variables assessed were: statistical software used for analysis, sample size, and statistical methods employed (measures of effect), controlling for confounders, and the method employed for confounder control or epidemiological approaches.
RESULTS: We included 313 articles (ranging from 11 to 77 across journals), of which 67.7% were cross-sectional studies. While 90.7% of articles specified the statistical software used, 78.3% omitted details on sample size calculation. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were commonly employed, whereas measures of association were less common. Only 13.4% of articles (ranging from 0% to 39% across journals) presented measures of effect controlling for confounding and explained the criteria for selecting such confounders.
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed important statistical deficiencies within analytical studies published in Peruvian journals, including inadequate reporting of sample sizes, absence of measures of association and confounding control, and suboptimal explanations regarding the methodologies employed for adjusted analyses. These findings highlight the need for better statistical reporting and researcher-editor collaboration to improve the quality of research production and dissemination in Peruvian journals.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, underpinning essential quality control. First conceptualised in the 1700s, it is an iterative process that aims to elevate scientific literature to the highest standards whilst preventing publication of scientifically unsound, potentially misleading, and even plagiarised information. It is widely accepted that the peer review of scientific papers is an irreplaceable and fundamental aspect of the research process. However, the rapid growth of research and technology has led to a huge increase in the number of publications. This has led to increased pressure on the peer review system. There are several established peer review methodologies, ranging from single and double blind to open and transparent review, but their implementation across journals and research fields varies greatly. Some journals are testing entirely novel approaches (such as collaborative reviews), whilst others are piloting changes to established methods. Given the unprecedented growth in publication numbers, and the ensuing burden on journals, editors, and reviewers, it is imperative to improve the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. Herein we evaluate the peer review process, from its historical origins to current practice and future directions.

暂无摘要。