Reviewing manuscripts for behavior-analytic journals: A primer.

The peer-review component of the editorial process is designed to facilitate quality control, legitimize scientific research, and self-regulate scientific communities. Even though serving as a reviewer undoubtedly has direct and indirect benefits, the peer-review system and the methods of teaching scholars to conduct reviews are nascent and relatively underdeveloped. This article describes the peer-review process and provides recommendations for writing reviews for scientific journals. The recommendations were developed based on the expertise and preferences of editors in chief and associate editors for behavior-analytic journals (Cengher & LeBlanc, 2024), and they include honoring your responsibility, knowing your audience, being constructive and kind, and carefully evaluating the merits of the study or review. These guidelines may serve as a primer for scholars who want to conduct reviews for scientific journals in behavior analysis.

Editors' perspectives on the selection of reviewers and the quality of reviews.

This article describes the outcomes of a survey of 93 editors in chief and associate editors of behavior-analytic journals. We sought information about variables that influence their judgment of the selection of reviewers, selection of review panels, and quality of reviews. When selecting reviewers, participants rated highly expertise on the topic, history of conducting good reviews, and history of writing constructive and respectful reviews. When selecting review panels, participants rated highly stratifying reviewers based on their expertise, avoiding conflicts of interest, and the matching based on the area of expertise between reviewers and authors. When evaluating the quality of a review, participants rated highly considerations related to research design, the science underlying the main idea, and accurate interpretations of the data. Participants did not rate copyediting as important. Overall, the extent to which reviewer selection was influenced by membership in underrepresented groups varied. These findings can inform the development of training programs for teaching peer-review repertoires.

Los desafíos de la revisión por pares: cómo garantizar la calidad y transparencia del proceso editorial de las revistas científicas / Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals

El proceso editorial de las revistas científicas es complejo pero esencial para la diseminación del conocimiento científico. La calidad del proceso reside en los autores, editores y revisores, quienes deben tener la responsabilidad, experiencia y el conocimiento necesario para garantizar la calidad de los artículos publicados. Uno de los retos más importantes que enfrentan las revistas científicas en la actualidad es la revisión por pares de los manuscritos. Los editores son responsables de coordinar y supervisar todo el proceso editorial, desde la recepción del manuscrito hasta la publicación final, y asegurar que los artículos cumplan con los estándares éticos y de integridad científica. Además, los editores tienen la responsabilidad de seleccionar correctamente a los revisores. Sin embargo, esta última tarea se está volviendo complicada debido al rechazo por parte de revisores expertos a participar en el proceso editorial. Los motivos son diversos, pero destacan la falta de reconocimiento del trabajo de revisor y el desgaste de los revisores más solicitados. Algunas de las medidas que se podrían tomar para paliar el problema se relacionan con la profesionalización de la revisión por pares. (AU)

The editorial process of scientific journals is complex but essential for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The quality of the process depends on the authors, editors and reviewers, who must have the necessary experience and knowledge to ensure the quality of the published articles. One of the most significant challenges scientific journals face today is the peer review of manuscripts. Editors are responsible for coordinating and overseeing the entire editorial process, from manuscript submission to final publication, and ensuring that articles meet ethical and scientific integrity standards. Editors are also in charge of selecting appropriate reviewers. However, the latter is becoming difficult due to the increasing refusal of expert reviewers to participate in the editorial process. The reasons for it are diverse, but the lack of recognition for review work and reviewer fatigue in the most sought-after reviewers are among the most important. Some of the measures that could be taken to alleviate the problem concern the possibility of professionalizing peer review. (AU)

Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals.

The editorial process of scientific journals is complex but essential for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The quality of the process depends on the authors, editors and reviewers, who must have the necessary experience and knowledge to ensure the quality of the published articles. One of the most significant challenges scientific journals face today is the peer review of manuscripts. Editors are responsible for coordinating and overseeing the entire editorial process, from manuscript submission to final publication, and ensuring that articles meet ethical and scientific integrity standards. Editors are also in charge of selecting appropriate reviewers. However, the latter is becoming difficult due to the increasing refusal of expert reviewers to participate in the editorial process. The reasons for it are diverse, but the lack of recognition for review work and reviewer fatigue in the most sought-after reviewers are among the most important. Some of the measures that could be taken to alleviate the problem concern the possibility of professionalizing peer review.

Resistance to Change.

Advances in medical technology do not follow a smooth process and are highly variable. Implementation can occasionally be rapid, but often faces varying degrees of resistance resulting at the very least in delayed implementation. Using qualitative comparative analysis, we have evaluated numerous technological advances from the perspective of how they were introduced, implemented, and opposed. Resistance varies from benign - often happening because of inertia or lack of resources to more active forms, including outright opposition using both appropriate and inappropriate methods to resist/delay changes in care. Today, even public health has become politicized, having nothing to do with the underlying science, but having catastrophic results. Two other corroding influences are marketing pressure from the private sector and vested interests in favor of one outcome or another. This also applies to governmental agencies. There are a number of ways in which papers have been buried including putting the thumb on the scale where reviewers can sabotage new ideas. Unless we learn to harness new technologies earlier in their life course and understand how to maneuver around the pillars of obstruction to their implementation, we will not be able to provide medical care at the forefront of technological capabilities.

Revisión por pares en la publicación científica: recomendaciones desde ODOVTOS / Peer Reviews in Scientific Journals: Recommendations from ODOVTOS

Resumen El proceso editorial de una revista, específicamente la revisión por pares, valida la publicación científica con el respaldo de la experiencia y el conocimiento de los revisores. Sin embargo, a pesar de que existen programas que capacitan en la parte investigativa a los miembros de la comunidad científica, son escasas las herramientas de capacitación para participar en el arbitraje de un manuscrito. El propósito de este artículo es presentar una guía con una serie de recomendaciones sobre cómo un artículo científico debe ser revisado por pares. Se realiza una sumatoria de recomendaciones y criterios que servirán para que los revisores de Odovtos-International Journal of Dental Sciences puedan utilizar como referencia y respaldo para su labor.

Abstract The editorial process of a journal, specifically peer review, validates the scientific publication supported by the experience and knowledge of the reviewers. However, despite the fact that there are programs that instruct members of the scientific community in research, there are few training tools to participate in the arbitration of a manuscript. The purpose of this article was to present a guide with a series of recommendations on how a scientific article should be peer-reviewed. A synopsis of recommendations and criteria is presented and will be used by the reviewers of Odovtos-International Journal of Dental Sciences as a reference to support their work.

An audit of the editorial process at the Indian Journal of Cancer: Lessons learned, and how to improve chances of acceptance of your paper.

BACKGROUND: The editors of the Indian Journal of Cancer (IJC) have not, so far, objectively analyzed the editorial processes involving author, referee, and editor data of the journal. Hence, we aimed at doing so in this audit. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed manuscripts submitted to the IJC from April 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020, for data related to the peer-review process. Microsoft Excel was used to enter the retrieved information and to carry out the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred and nineteen manuscripts were submitted during the study period. Of these, three were excluded from the study. Of the 316, 79 (25%) were articles on laboratory medicine; 182 (57.6%) were original articles. About half of the submitted manuscripts (166, 52.5%) were desk-rejected. Of the remaining 149 manuscripts, 105 did not follow the instructions to contributors (ITC) and required a median number of two revisions (range = 1-5) to satisfy the ITC. To review 107 manuscripts, 536 external referees were invited; of them 306 did not respond, 79 declined the invitation, and 151 accepted the invitation. Of these 151, 132 reverted with comments. Of the 200 Indians who were invited as referees, 118 (59%) accepted the invitation, whereas of the 336 non-Indian referees, only 33 (9.8%) did. Of the 107 Indian and 25 non-Indian referees who sent their comments, 86 (80.4%) and 19 (88%), respectively, offered useful comments. The median number of days to decision: for desk-rejection was 1 day (range = 0 - 42) days, for rejection after peer-review was 67 (range = 4 - 309) days, and for acceptance was 133.5 (range = 42 - 305) days. Decision has not yet been taken for 14 manuscripts. CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence that it is difficult to get referees. Also, a significant number of authors do not read or follow the ITC. We suggest that the time taken for a decision can be appreciably improved if these issues are addressed.

2020 - State of our JCMR.

There were 79 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2019, including 65 original research papers, 2 reviews, 8 technical notes, 1 Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonacne (SCMR) guideline, and 3 corrections. The volume was down slightly from 2018 (n = 89) with a corresponding 5.5% increase in manuscript submissions from 345 to 366. This led to a slight decrease in the acceptance rate from 25 to 22%. The quality of the submissions continues to be high. The 2019 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2020) increased from 5.07 to 5.36. The 2020 impact factor means that on average, each JCMR published in 2017 and 2018 was cited 5.36 times in 2019. Our 5 year impact factor was 5.2. We are now finishing the 13th year of JCMR as an open-access publication with BMC. As outlined in this report, the Open-Access system has dramatically increased the reading and citation of JCMR publications. I hope that our authors will continue to send their very best, high quality manuscripts for JCMR consideration and that our readers will continue to look to JCMR for the very best/state-of-the-art publications in our field. It takes a village to run a journal. JCMR is blessed to have very dedicated Associate Editors, Guest Editors, and Reviewers. I thank each of them for their efforts to ensure that the review process occurs in a timely and responsible manner. These efforts have allowed the JCMR to continue as the premier journal of our field. My role, and the entire process would not be possible without the dedication and efforts of our managing editor, Diana Gethers (who will leaving the journal in the coming months) and our assistant managing editor, Jennifer Rodriguez, who has agreed to increase her reponsibilities. Finally, I thank you for entrusting me with the editorship of the JCMR. As I begin my 5th year as your editor-in-chief, please know that I fully recognize we are not perfect in our review process. We try our best to objectively assess every submission in a timely manner, but sometimes don't get it "right." The editorial process is a tremendously fulfilling experience for me. The opportunity to review manuscripts that reflect the best in our field remains a great joy and a highlight of my week!

O processo colaborativo do fazer a Ciência & Saúde Coletiva / The collaborative process in the making of Ciência & Saúde Coletiva

Resumo Este artigo apresenta as diversas etapas do processo editorial da Revista Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. Ao longo desses 25 anos diferentes modos de processar o trabalho foram sendo superados e outros foram sendo introduzidos. Cada etapa dessa construção será aprofundada com o objetivo de discutir "o fazer" cotidiano de uma publicação acadêmica de tamanha envergadura e complexidade. A Revista Ciência & Saúde Coletiva aprofunda em cada edição um tema da área, tratando-o em sua transversalidade e complexidade. Essa tematização vai de 10 a 35 artigos, pois 35 artigos são publicados mensalmente (temáticos e temas livres), em sua maioria em português e inglês e espanhol, cumprindo as exigências de prazos das mais conceituadas bases de dados nacionais e internacionais de livre acesso. Nesse a fazer, um dos grandes problemas é o financiamento, pois é muito escasso - embora fundamental - o apoio das instituições de fomento.

Abstract This paper presents the different stages of the editorial process of Journal Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. Different processing work methods have been overcome over these 25 years, and others have been introduced. Each stage of this construction will be analyzed in-depth to discuss the "making" of an academic publication of such a large scale and complexity. The Journal Ciência & Saúde Coletiva delves into each issue a theme in the field, addressing its cross-sectionality and complexity. This thematization ranges from 10 to 35 papers. Thirty-five papers are published monthly (thematic and free subjects), mostly in Portuguese, English, and Spanish, fulfilling the most prestigious national and international open-access databases' deadline requirements. In this making, one of the significant issues is funding because the crucial development institutions' support is very scarce.

MyCites: a proposal to mark and report inaccurate citations in scholarly publications.

BACKGROUND: Inaccurate citations are erroneous quotations or instances of paraphrasing of previously published material that mislead readers about the claims of the cited source. They are often unaddressed due to underreporting, the inability of peer reviewers and editors to detect them, and editors' reluctance to publish corrections about them. In this paper, we propose a new tool that could be used to tackle their circulation. METHODS: We provide a review of available data about inaccurate citations and analytically explore current ways of reporting and dealing with these inaccuracies. Consequently, we make a distinction between publication (i.e., first occurrence) and circulation (i.e., reuse) of inaccurate citations. Sloppy reading of published items, literature ambiguity and insufficient quality control in the editorial process are identified as factors that contribute to the publication of inaccurate citations. However, reiteration or copy-pasting without checking the validity of citations, paralleled with lack of resources/motivation to report/correct inaccurate citations contribute to their circulation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We propose the development of an online annotation tool called "MyCites" as means with which to mark and map inaccurate citations. This tool allows ORCID users to annotate citations and alert authors (of the cited and citing articles) and also editors of journals where inaccurate citations are published. Each marked citation would travel with the digital version of the document (persistent identifiers) and be visible on websites that host peer-reviewed articles (journals' websites, Pubmed, etc.). In the future development of MyCites, challenges such as the conditions of correct/incorrect-ness and parties that should adjudicate that, and, the issue of dealing with incorrect reports need to be addressed.

Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work.

BACKGROUND: Triggered by a series of controversies and diversifying expectations of editorial practices, several innovative peer review procedures and supporting technologies have been proposed. However, adoption of these new initiatives seems slow. This raises questions about the wider conditions for peer review change and about the considerations that inform decisions to innovate. We set out to study the structure of commercial publishers' editorial process, to reveal how the benefits of peer review innovations are understood, and to describe the considerations that inform the implementation of innovations. METHODS: We carried out field visits to the editorial office of two large academic publishers housing the editorial staff of several hundreds of journals, to study their editorial process, and interviewed editors not affiliated with large publishers. Field notes were transcribed and analysed using coding software. RESULTS: At the publishers we analysed, the decision-making structure seems to show both clear patterns of hierarchy and layering of the different editorial practices. While information about new initiatives circulates widely, their implementation depends on assessment of stakeholder's wishes, impact on reputation, efficiency and implementation costs, with final decisions left to managers at the top of the internal hierarchy. Main tensions arise between commercial and substantial arguments. The editorial process is closely connected to commercial practices of creating business value, and the very specific terms in which business value is understood, such as reputation considerations and the urge to increase efficiency. Journals independent of large commercial publishers tend to have less hierarchically structured processes, report more flexibility to implement innovations, and to a greater extent decouple commercial and editorial perspectives. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that peer review innovations are partly to be understood in light of commercial considerations related to reputation, efficiency and implementations costs. These arguments extend beyond previously studied topics in publishing economics, including publishers' choice for business or publication models and reach into the very heart of the editorial and peer review process.

Analysis of submissions, editorial and peer-review process, and outcome of manuscripts submitted to the Indian Journal of Dermatology Venereology and Leprology over a 6-month period.

BACKGROUND: Despite an interest in the editorial process at biomedical journals, not much information is available on this topic. AIMS: To study the characteristics of the submissions to the Indian Journal of Dermatology Venereology and Leprology (IJDVL) and analyze the editorial and peer-review process and factors influencing the final outcome. METHODS: Retrospective review of the manuscripts submitted to the IJDVL from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2016. RESULTS: The IJDVL received 639 manuscripts during the study period, most being Case reports (35%), Research articles (30%), and Letters to editor (20%). The proportion of submissions from Indian (53%) and foreign (47%) authors was comparable. About 55% (n = 353/639) of the submissions were editorially rejected. Some of the common reasons for editorial rejection included "sub-optimal images," "no novelty," "incomplete information or results," and "incorrect diagnosis or interpretation of results." The acceptance rate during this period was 19%. The median number of days to reach the final decision was 14 days for editorial rejection, 146 days for acceptance, and 85 days for rejection after external peer-review. The acceptance rates were higher for submissions from Indian authors [odds ratio (OR) 1.96], those submitted as Letters (OR 2.06), or in the area of tropical infections (OR 2.17). Submissions as research articles (expB = 1.23), those from Indian authors (expB = 1.15), final decision being acceptance (expB = 1.56), and those requiring preliminary author revisions (expB = 3.34), external re-reviews (expB = 2.22), and repeated author re-revisions (expB = 2.34) were associated with longer times to reach final decision. LIMITATIONS: A relatively short study period of 6 months. CONCLUSION: The IJDVL attracts submissions both from India and abroad. Articles submitted in the Letters category or related to tropical infections were most likely to be accepted. There is scope for improving the time taken for editorial processing of manuscripts.

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: 2017/2018 in review.

There were 89 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2017, including 76 original research papers, 4 reviews, 5 technical notes, 1 guideline, and 3 corrections. The volume was down slightly from 2017 with a corresponding 15% decrease in manuscript submissions from 405 to 346 and thus reflects a slight increase in the acceptance rate from 25 to 26%. The decrease in submissions for the year followed the initiation of the increased author processing charge (APC) for Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) members for manuscripts submitted after June 30, 2018. The quality of the submissions continues to be high. The 2018 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2019) was slightly lower at 5.1 (vs. 5.46 for 2017; as published in June 2018. The 2018 impact factor means that on average, each JCMR published in 2016 and 2017 was cited 5.1 times in 2018. Our 5 year impact factor was 5.82.In accordance with Open-Access publishing guidelines of BMC, the JCMR articles are published on-line in a continuus fashion in the chronologic order of acceptance, with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, over the years, the Editors have felt that it is useful for the JCMR audience to annually summarize the publications into broad areas of interest or themes, so that readers can view areas of interest in a single article in relation to each other and contemporaneous JCMR publications. In this publication, the manuscripts are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought within the journal. In addition, as in the past two years, I have used this publication to also convey information regarding the editorial process and as a "State of our JCMR."This is the 12th year of JCMR as an open-access publication with BMC (formerly known as Biomed Central). The timing of the JCMR transition to the open access platform was "ahead of the curve" and a tribute to the vision of Dr. Matthias Friedrich, the SCMR Publications Committee Chair and Dr. Dudley Pennell, the JCMR editor-in-chief at the time. The open-access system has dramatically increased the reading and citation of JCMR publications and I hope that you, our authors, will continue to send your very best, high quality manuscripts to JCMR for consideration. It takes a village to run a journal and I thank our very dedicated Associate Editors, Guest Editors, Reviewers for their efforts to ensure that the review process occurs in a timely and responsible manner. These efforts have allowed the JCMR to continue as the premier journal of our field. This entire process would also not be possible without the dedication and efforts of our managing editor, Diana Gethers. Finally, I thank you for entrusting me with the editorship of the JCMR as I begin my 4th year as your editor-in-chief. It has been a tremendous experience for me and the opportunity to review manuscripts that reflect the best in our field remains a great joy and highlight of my week!

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2017.

There were 106 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2017, including 92 original research papers, 3 reviews, 9 technical notes, and 1 Position paper, 1 erratum and 1 correction. The volume was similar to 2016 despite an increase in manuscript submissions to 405 and thus reflects a slight decrease in the acceptance rate to 26.7%. The quality of the submissions continues to be high. The 2017 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2018) was minimally lower at 5.46 (vs. 5.71 for 2016; as published in June 2017), which is the second highest impact factor ever recorded for JCMR. The 2017 impact factor means that an average, each JCMR paper that were published in 2015 and 2016 was cited 5.46 times in 2017.In accordance with Open-Access publishing of Biomed Central, the JCMR articles are published on-line in continuus fashion and in the chronologic order of acceptance, with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, over the years, the Editors have felt that it is useful to annually summarize the publications into broad areas of interest or theme, so that readers can view areas of interest in a single article in relation to each other and other contemporary JCMR articles. In this publication, the manuscripts are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought within the journal. In addition, I have elected to use this format to convey information regarding the editorial process to the readership.I hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your very best, high quality manuscripts to JCMR for consideration. I thank our very dedicated Associate Editors, Guest Editors, and Reviewers for their efforts to ensure that the review process occurs in a timely and responsible manner and that the JCMR continues to be recognized as the forefront journal of our field. And finally, I thank you for entrusting me with the editorship of the JCMR as I begin my 3rd year as your editor-in-chief. It has been a tremendous learning experience for me and the opportunity to review manuscripts that reflect the best in our field remains a great joy and highlight of my week!

Detecting Hijacked Journals by Using Classification Algorithms.

Invalid journals are recent challenges in the academic world and many researchers are unacquainted with the phenomenon. The number of victims appears to be accelerating. Researchers might be suspicious of predatory journals because they have unfamiliar names, but hijacked journals are imitations of well-known, reputable journals whose websites have been hijacked. Hijacked journals issue calls for papers via generally laudatory emails that delude researchers into paying exorbitant page charges for publication in a nonexistent journal. This paper presents a method for detecting hijacked journals by using a classification algorithm. The number of published articles exposing hijacked journals is limited and most of them use simple techniques that are limited to specific journals. Hence we needed to amass Internet addresses and pertinent data for analyzing this type of attack. We inspected the websites of 104 scientific journals by using a classification algorithm that used criteria common to reputable journals. We then prepared a decision tree that we used to test five journals we knew were authentic and five we knew were hijacked.

Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows.

In this paper, we undertake a data-driven theoretical investigation of editorial workflows. We analyse a dataset containing information about 58 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. We separate the peer review process into stages that each paper has to go through and introduce the notion of completion rate - the probability that an invitation sent to a potential reviewer will result in a finished review. Using empirical transition probabilities and probability distributions of the duration of each stage we create a directed weighted network, the analysis of which allows us to obtain the theoretical probability distributions of review time for different classes of reviewers. These theoretical distributions underlie our numerical simulations of different editorial strategies. Through these simulations, we test the impact of some modifications of the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole review process. We discover that the distribution of review time is similar for all classes of reviewers, and that the completion rate of reviewers known personally by the editor is very high, which means that they are much more likely to answer the invitation and finish the review than other reviewers. Thus, the completion rate is the key factor that determines the efficiency of each editorial policy. Our results may be of great importance for editors and act as a guide in determining the optimal number of reviewers.

On the pitfalls of peer review.

The review process of academic, scientific research and its basic tenets is considered, thereby distinguishing between (i) reviewing of manuscripts to be published in the scientific literature, (ii) reviewing of research proposals to be financed by funding agencies, (iii) reviewing of educational or research institutions with respect to their proper functioning, and (iv) reviewing of scientists with the aim of appointing or tenuring faculty.

Una revisión crítica del proceso de "peer review" / A critical review of the "peer review" process

Las revistas biomédicas tienen como objetivo fundamental publicar artículos de la máxima calidad científica y conseguir una amplia difusión de sus contenidos. Las revistas científicas compiten para publicar los mejores trabajos de investigación que se generan en su disciplina. Para ello deben realizar una valoración rigurosa de todos los trabajos que reciben para identificar y seleccionar sólo los mejores. El proceso de "peer-review", o revisión por pares, se ha considerado clásicamente como una parte fundamental del proceso científico. Consiste en la valoración crítica de los artículos científicos por expertos externos e independientes. Este proceso es fundamental para la mejora de los artículos y para guiar a los editores en su decisión final. Aunque el proceso está bien consolidado entre la comunidad científica y editorial internacional, siempre ha sido cuestionado. A lo largo del tiempo se han implementado múltiples estrategias para mejorar su calidad y para optimizar sus resultados pero el sistema sigue teniendo limitaciones. Paradójicamente, existe poca evidencia científica de que el proceso de "peer review", universalmente aceptado para validar la ciencia, sea realmente efectivo. Por eso su calidad debe supervisarse muy estrechamente para intentar conseguir la excelencia, ya que de ella depende la credibilidad del proceso científico. En esta revisión analizaremos críticamente el proceso de "peer review" y explicaremos por qué, a pesar de sus limitaciones, sigue considerándose como el "estándar de oro" en la valoración de manuscritos científicos por parte de las revistas biomédicas.

The main objective of biomedical journals is to publish high-quality scientific studies and to ensure a widespread dissemination of their contents. Journals compete for the best science generated in their respective disciplines and, therefore, they critically scrutinize the scientific quality of all submitted papers in order to identify and select only those that merit publication. The "peer review" system represents the cornerstone of the scientific process. It provides a critical appraisal, by external independent experts, of the studies under consideration. The system is intended to improve the quality of the submitted papers but also to help the Editors in their decision-making process. The process has been widely embraced by the scientific and editorial international community but it is not free from caveats. In fact, although several strategies have been implemented to improve its quality and the results obtained, limitations still persist. Accordingly, its quality should be closely monitored to ensure excellence. Surprisingly, although the "peer review" process is universally accepted to validate the science, limited scientific information exists on its real value. In this review we will critically analyze the "peer review" process and we will advance some ideas that may help to understand why, in spite of its limitations, it remains the "gold standard" for the selection of scientific manuscripts by biomedical journals.