Editorial

Abstract

The world of scientific journals is not exempt from the dramas that can be found in other literary fields. The most recent one revolves around the proposal of the journal eLife, whose editor promised at the beginning of the year that he would publish all the articles received, once they were sent to peer review. This would mean that those involved in research studies would never again receive a rejection letter, a measure that was received with equal parts appreciation and distrust. On the one hand, it avoids the subjective criteria of the reviewers, who might consider that a topic does not merit publication because it lacks interest (a decision that sometimes comes from a personal impression and not from a real understanding that even small findings can have major repercussions), but, on the other hand, it makes available to thousands of members of the health system articles that could be biased, plagued by methodological errors or, and this would not be the first time, be the fruit of the imagination of the author or authors. When we put both scenarios on the scale, I think it is clear that the latter is more risky than the former.
Although it may seem like a good idea and I understand the laudable purpose behind the premise, it is a dangerous measure in the highly globalized modern world. The existence of fake news is proof of the risk posed by a rumor turned into reality by the power of social networks. In the case of scientific articles, which can be modified and dissected at the reader's discretion, presenting only the information they need to defend a point of view, it is a volatile tool. If this research does not go through the rigorous review and editing process that peer review provides, we release to the world, under the label of "scientific article" data that could become standards of care, with the potential to affect the health of thousands of people around the world.
The only way to address this situation and make ideas like eLife work is to develop in the recipients of these articles the ability to critically evaluate these studies. Unfortunately, the subject of "critical reading" is not part of most university medical programs, being reduced to small courses (often not mandatory) that only reach a few interested people. As long as we do not achieve that most of the graduates of the health system have the ability to discern which conclusion presented is valid or not, publishing indiscriminately is nothing more than a time bomb that, sooner or later, will charge us for our lack of vision.