From trial and error to Equator Network

The dissemination of science is grounded on the reliability and value of the research literature that, through an editorial process, expresses the necessary detail to meet the reproducibility and refutably demands that underlie the scientific method. Three roles are defined in this editorial process that the researcher may assume at differing times or simultaneously, from the beginning of his career to the end of professional life: those of author, reviewer and editor. Authorship is scientific initiation, and despite identifying ourselves with the scientific method in the development of the research, writing and publication of a manuscript are closer to the methodologies of trial and error during the editorial process. Writing courses on scientific articles favor the structuring of information; however, they cannot cover the individuality of methodological design, and depending on the demands and help provided through editorial work, the published article may have a variable quality that does not reflect the methodological rigor and results of the research that was carried out. Sooner or later, publishing an article means receiving a call from the journals to be a reviewer of another manuscript in which one might be considered an expert, and for this new role there is no schooling. Review guidelines are sent along with the document to be evaluated and these are used indiscriminately for a laboratory experiment, a clinical trial or a qualitative analysis, among others. Experience counts and an academic background may lead a reviewer to evaluate using more formative recommendations, while a more exacting researcher will highlight the weaknesses and points where the writing needs improvement. The final result of a peer review evaluation can generate conflicting recommendations from two expert arbiters with adequate argumentation. Again, trial and error will lead to improvements in the qualities of the reviewer, considering that this learning process has a rhythm of its own for each researcher. The editor assumes the two previous roles on numerous occasions until attaining a criterion (trial and error learning) that permits guidance to the author for the best possible outcome while considering the recommendations of the reviewers. From this standpoint the variability and vulnerability of the entire editorial process are very obvious and a search for guidelines that seek to standardize the information published, based on quality criteria becomes mandatory. The CONSORT Statement 1 was the first universally accepted writing guide for controlled clinical studies. Later on, guidelines for studies concerning meta-analysis (PRISMA, …