Statistics from Altmetric.com
This article arose within the framework of the EMEUNET peer review mentoring program.1 This project allows mentees to independently review articles submitted to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and RMD Open, tutored by an expert reviewer, thus nurturing their critical skills in the interpretation of a paper. After reviewing several papers together, the authors of this manuscript concluded the program fantasising about the potential changes in the editorial processes in the near and not so near future, resulting in this brief story. In particular, the authors thought about the delicate role of reviewers and editors, whose intellectual independence and integrity represent the foundation of the peer-review process.
We take you into the year 2@84 and describe the last day of work of Professor Ned, the editor of Rheumacity, the global comprehensive rheumatology knowledge database. He now must now handover his tasks to Highly Automated Logic Editor (HAL-E), the recently developed artificial intelligence and future editor in chief of Rheumacity, who is of course no longer a human being. While in his home and performing the final tasks in this handover to the machine, he recapitulate show he started his career in this field, how publishing evolved, what can go wrong and what the future will bring. He is a human and his mind is rambling on his last day at work.
Professor Ned’s last day at Rheumacity
…Ned woke up at one of the hottest dawn of the summer, looking for his near-sightedness spectacles and a glass of water on the bedside table. The thirst quencher was waiting there, close to a new generation tablet and the touch free lamp. He took this habit from his old grandpa. ‘Always keep a glass of water on your nightstand, and a book. They both will make you sleep better.’ A book, …
Handling editor Josef S Smolen
Contributors ML and GRB drafted the manuscript. All the authors finalised the manuscript and approved the final version.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.