WIKIMEDIA, W. FORBES-LEITHWe often look back on the past through rose-tinted glasses. We admit such might be the case in this instance, as we remember an age now so long-forgotten that it seems like scientific antiquity. In this bygone era (ending around 1997), core scientific principles and cordiality seemed to rule side-by-side. There was little talk of “supplemental data.” You could count the biomedical journals relevant to your field with both your hands. Most papers could be read and understood in less than an hour. Behind the scenes, the art of peer review was passed quietly from advisor to advisee, much as early Christian teachings were passed from coryphaeus to acolyte.
But times have changed: the Internet now rules, biomedical journals have proliferated, access is increasingly open, and big science—complete with ever-expanding datasets—is the new normal. Some of these trends have simplified the review of scientific manuscripts. For example, rather than relying on couriers and fax machines, one can download a manuscript and upload a review via a journal website nearly instantaneously. In other ways, peer review has become more onerous. Journal proliferation has obscured both the real and perceived standards to which manuscripts are held. Today’s biomedical science is more sophisticated, frequently drawing on information from once separate fields of study and utilizing diverse techniques with an increased reliance on statistical and other quantitative measures. As a result, accurate interpretation often demands mastery of a ...
