At a time when editors may be burnt out, but when readers still expect quality data-informed advice, and when ad hoc scientific “peer review” on social media has limited impact, we need a different approach, one that addresses the two main problems.
First, to what degree is expertise and credibility required when opining about an active pandemic, especially on policies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and how best can editors determine this?
Second, during an active pandemic, should the publication standards for pandemic-focused op-eds be higher, knowing that the consequences of readers integrating this information can be immense, potentially even impacting pandemic prediction models themselves?
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here