Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of Web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform current models while avoiding as many of the biases of existing systems as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that, at least partially, resolves many of the technical and social issues associated with peer review, and can potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

La nueva ley universitaria 30220 del 2014 creó la obligatoriedad del licenciamiento institucional de todas las universidades peruanas a cargo de la Superintendencia Nacional de Educación Superior Universitaria -SUNEDU, el primer programa de pregrado en pasar por el mismo proceso será medicina. El licenciamiento de programas de medicina es necesario para garantizar que las condiciones en que se imparte la carrera en el Perú son las adecuadas, con la alta posibilidad de cierre de algunas escuelas de medicina. Una vez que una escuela de medicina haya demostrado que cumple con las condiciones básicas de calidad, se realiza una evaluación cualitativa y una cuantitativa que incluye tres criterios: producción científica en Web of Science, impacto medido a través del índice H, y resultados del examen nacional de medicina, para determinar los años de licenciamiento. Este artículo realiza una evaluación de los indicadores cuantitativos vinculados a investigación usando Web of Science y Scopus, además de hacer revisiones técnicas y metodológicas de los mismos; así como sugerencias para los otros indicadores.

Objective This study was undertaken to perform an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis to estimate the pooled prevalence and incidence of epilepsy in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), describing trends over time, and exploring potential clinical and epidemiological factors explaining the heterogeneity in the region. Methods Observational studies assessing the incidence or prevalence of epilepsy in LAC countries up to March 2020 were systematically reviewed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) guidelines. Meta‐analyses and cumulative analyses were performed using random‐effects models. We assessed between‐study heterogeneity with sensitivity, subgroup, and meta‐regression analyses. Moreover, the quality of the included studies and the certainty of evidence were evaluated using the GRADE (grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation) approach. Results Overall, 40 studies (from 42 records) were included, 37 for prevalence analyses and six for incidence (312 387 inhabitants; 410 178 person‐years). The lifetime prevalence was 14.09 per 1000 inhabitants (95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.72–16.67), for active epilepsy prevalence was 9.06 per 1000 individuals (95% CI = 6.94–11.44), and the incidence rate was 1.11 per 1000 person‐years (95% CI = .65–1.70). These high estimates have been constant in the region since 1990. However, substantial statistical heterogeneity between studies and publication bias were found. The overall certainty of evidence was low. Methodological aspects (sample size) and countries’ epidemiological characteristics such as access to sanitation services and child and adult mortality rates explained the high heterogeneity. Finally, the prevalence of epilepsy associated with neurocysticercosis (NCC) in the general population was high, and the proportion of NCC diagnosis among people living with epilepsy was 17.37%. Significance The epilepsy prevalence and incidence in LAC are higher than worldwide estimates, being constant since 1990 and strongly influenced by NCC. We identified high between‐study heterogeneity and significant methodological limitations (e.g., heterogeneous definitions, lack of longitudinal studies). The region needs upgraded research using standardized definitions and diagnostic methods, and urgent action against preventable causes.