article · ESMO Real World Data and Digital Oncology
Current peer review and editorial triage systems frequently issue terse desk rejections or nonspecialist reviews to submissions originating from under-resourced settings. This dynamic obscures addressable reporting and methodological problems, particularly in growing fields such as digital health and real-world data, hindering researcher progression. A proposed alternative mechanism, termed the mentorship escrow, introduces a compact and equity-focused remediation pathway. The framework incorporates upstream support mechanisms, a defined remediation window, and downstream pathways designed to transform borderline submissions into structured, time-limited capacity-building exercises. Practical guidance covers implementation approaches, pilot design considerations, and quantifiable metrics for tracking equity and quality. The framework also addresses operational challenges including mentor availability, funding needs, selection bias, and dependency risks, offering strategies to preserve rigorous editorial standards while broadening the publication of locally relevant research.
Conventional peer review often discards valuable research from under-resourced settings because of fixable presentation or methodology issues. Reforming this process provides emerging researchers with constructive development opportunities, helping diverse evidence enter the scientific record without lowering methodological rigor or overburdening editorial staff.
The model targets academic publishers, editorial boards, and research institutions seeking to improve submission pipelines and capacity building. Because it is presented as a procedural framework and pilot design rather than an existing commercial product or software tool, it remains in an early stage of adoption requiring institutional testing and dedicated funding to determine operational viability.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Peer review and editorial triage together are the cornerstones of scientific credibility yet their combined cracks are increasingly visible. As real-world data and digital health technologies have become increasingly important sources of evidence generation, many promising submissions from under-resourced settings receive terse desk rejections or nonspecialist reviews that obscure remediable methodological and reporting issues, limiting learning and career progression. We propose a compact, author-initiated, equity-centred remediation pathway—the mentorship escrow—that integrates upstream supports, a core remediation window, and a downstream pathway, converting borderline submissions into time-bounded and capacity-building interventions. We outline practical implementation steps, pilot design considerations, and measurable equity and quality metrics; discuss trade-offs across components; and address variable constraints including mentor availability, funding, potential selection bias, and risks of dependency, proposing mitigation strategies to ensure scalable, sustainable capacity building that preserves editorial standards while broadening the circulation of locally relevant evidence.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1016/j.esmorw.2026.100768
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
