====== Peer Review Crisis Solutions ====== In recent years, there have been growing concerns about the [[peer review process]], including issues with [[bias]], lack of [[transparency]], and [[conflicts of interest]]. Here are some potential solutions to the [[peer review crisis]]: [[Open Peer Review]] Double-Blind Peer Review: In this approach, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are hidden from each other. This can help to reduce bias and increase fairness in the review process. Post-Publication Peer Review: This approach involves publishing the research first and allowing for public review and critique afterward. This can help to catch errors or oversights that may have been missed during the initial peer review process. Collaborative Peer Review: In this approach, multiple reviewers work together to review the manuscript, providing a more thorough and well-rounded review. This can help to reduce bias and increase the quality of the review. Diversifying Peer Reviewers: This involves expanding the pool of reviewers to include a more diverse range of individuals in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, and geographic location. This can help to reduce bias and increase fairness in the review process. Providing Training and Resources: Peer reviewers should be provided with training and resources to help them perform their job effectively. This can include workshops on how to review manuscripts, guidance on ethical considerations, and access to relevant research. Addressing Conflicts of Interest: Publishers should establish clear guidelines for identifying and addressing conflicts of interest among peer reviewers. This can help to ensure that the review process is fair and unbiased. By implementing these solutions, the peer review process can be improved, leading to more reliable and trustworthy research. ---- Can we solve this peer review crisis? Yes, we can. Before killing the system, we can try some of the many possible solutions. First and foremost, conducting an educational effort to raise awareness among authors of scientific articles that all should act as [[peer reviewer]]s, not only the lead or the corresponding authors. Then, practicality that some journals are implementing, email addresses of all the authors should be available. At the end of the day, per authorship requirements, all authors are responsible for the entire content of the article published. A second potential solution is to compensate reviewers for their time. The job of peer reviewers was traditionally associated with generosity and collegiality, or even just as a moral obligation. Compensating the review effort is still an unsolved issue ((Rohn J. Why I said no to peer review this summer Nature. 2019;572(7770):417. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02470-2.)) (( Sugimoto CR, Larivière V, Ni C, Cronin B. Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures. J Informetr. 2013;7(4):879–906. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.007.)). Third, we should accept that peer reviewers, when they perform a good review, contributed to the final version of the article more so than many of the individuals listed in the acknowledgments section ((Fernandez-Llimos, F., Salgado, T. M., & Tonin, F. S. (2020). How many manuscripts should I peer review per year? Pharmacy Practice, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2020.1.1804)). ---- We should accept that peer [[reviewer]]s when they perform a good [[review]], contributed to the final version of the [[article]] more so than many of the individuals listed in the [[acknowledgment]]s section. Unfortunately, [[journal]]s, [[indexer]]s, [[academic institution]]s, and funding bodies are not considering these [[contribution]]s as curricular [[merit]]s. Pharmacy Practice started a new [[practice]] of including all peer reviewers of the past year as part of the collective [[author]] in the first [[editorial]] of the new year. Thus, their names are searchable in [[PubMed]] using the [IR] field descriptor ((Fernandez-Llimos F Pharmacy Practice 2018 peer reviewers. Peer review and publication delay. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2019;17(1):1502. doi: 10.18549/PharmPract.2019.1.1502)). ((Fernandez-Llimos F Pharmacy Practice 2017 peer reviewers. Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2018;16(1):1236. doi: 10.18549/PharmPract.2018.01.1236.)). ---- Can we solve this peer review crisis? Yes, we can. Before killing the system, we can try some of the many possible solutions. First and foremost, conducting an educational effort to raise awareness among authors of scientific articles that all should act as [[peer reviewer]]s, not only the lead or the corresponding authors. Then, practicality that some journals are implementing, email addresses of all the authors should be available. At the end of the day, per authorship requirements, all authors are responsible for the entire content of the article published. A second potential solution is to compensate reviewers for their time. The job of peer reviewers was traditionally associated with generosity and collegiality, or even just as a moral obligation. Compensating the review effort is still an unsolved issue ((Rohn J. Why I said no to peer review this summer Nature. 2019;572(7770):417. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02470-2.)) (( Sugimoto CR, Larivière V, Ni C, Cronin B. Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures. J Informetr. 2013;7(4):879–906. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.007.)). Third, we should accept that peer reviewers, when they perform a good review, contributed to the final version of the article more so than many of the individuals listed in the acknowledgments section ((Fernandez-Llimos, F., Salgado, T. M., & Tonin, F. S. (2020). How many manuscripts should I peer review per year? Pharmacy Practice, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2020.1.1804)).