When reading some of the main medical journals, one realizes that the tasks of the editors imply also an activity known as “scientific gatekeeping”. It basically means a triage of the submited articles to dispose of those who do not comply with the rigours of correct medical research or to strategically avoid alien fields of interest to the journal. Editors are supposed to master clinical and/or basic research in order to fit to the job position and thus take responsibility for these operations. They are also accountable for their actions.
Facts speek for themselves: fraudulent, fabricated articles sieved by the gatekeepers’ selection process; shallow peer-review process; pression exerted in the intent of using influence to promote publication; loading by dues to authors, moods’ driven unfair rejections. Other facts could be added to the list, emerging as mushrooms fueled by frustration. One of them is mannerism in scientific writing. An impeccable form of written study, correct statistics, conforming IRBs end up in being published and often cited when appearing in important journals. Still, not all of them contain significant clinical findings. The package is attractive, the content dull. It is selling though. The terminal phrase “… further studies are needed to confirm our findings” is sometimes just a defensive tool to prevent challenge. I wonder how many of these studies are included in meta-analyses and/or cited and an analysis of this issues would be a step forward in enlighting the scientific writing process. [More]