«I Do Not Have Time»—Is This the End of Peer Review in Public Health Sciences?

Chocolate Eaters Do Not Necessarily Win a Nobel Prize—Authors in Special Issues Do Not Necessarily Publish Lower Quality Papers

“…It appropriately addresses the enormous strain on scientists related to the growth of publications. The two SSPH+ journals also experience the consequences of this strain, including difficulties in finding reviewers and long peer review processes [4]. However, we disagree with the implicit messages of the article as it is based on inadequate methodology.…”

The rise of a mega‐journal in public health publishing

“…There is growing concern that the peer review system is under extreme pressure in public health and other academic disciplines (DeLisi, 2022; Künzli et al, 2022). The main innovation introduced by MDPI to address this problem is a large administrative staff that fast‐tracks reviews and editorial decisions.…”

The importance of peer review skills: Value and necessity of training residents to ensure continued scientific excellence

“…Several criticisms of accuracy coupled with predictions of impending shortages of peer reviewers could create a "peer review crisis." [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Many who participate in peer review feel this is a professional responsibility, but it can require a significant time commitment, reportedly an average of 3-8 hour per review, 8,9 without guarantee of a professional benefit. While this can be frustrating, we believe it has become even more important for more clinicians and scientists to participate in the peer review process as research studies proliferate and the public is deluged with medical misinformation, inaccurate research, and predatory journals.…”