Peer-reviewed Publications in 2020: Still Needed?

Abstract

P eer-reviewed publications remain the mainstay of medi- cal and most scientific disciplines.Unfortunately, the peer-review process is slow-submission to top scientific journals, external review by experts, and editing with multiple revisions all lead to a very slow turnaround time.The entire process can take 9-12 months.In the age of instant communications, blogs, and tweets, why do we continue to bother with the old-fashioned peer-review process?The peer-review process is certainly not perfect.Other newer forms of publishing are constantly being evaluated.Current in vogue forms of publishing range from minimal peer review (PLOS One) to no peer review at all (eg, arXiv, bioRxiv).Nevertheless, peer-reviewed publications continue to dominate for several reasons: First, peer review improves the quality of publication.Reviewers notice flaws or bias in the methods and results, allowing better understanding of the research.Second, peer review helps select articles most relevant to the journal's audience, a necessary step due to the high cost of publishing ($3000-$5000 per article).For Radiology, our budget allows publication of only about 10% of the articles that we receive.Ten years ago, a popular view was that all scientific papers not offensive or without blatant scientific error should be published.The peer-reviewed journal PLOS One was founded on these principles.At its peak, the

Ähnliche Arbeiten