How do you deal with the challenges and limitations of peer review as a quality assurance mechanism?

The reviewer should take the responsibility not to be biased while reviewing any research paper. The paper should be given to the reviewer without any information related to names, communication details, location information, funding source and acknowledgement. These information can later be provided by the editor before publication.

Researchers do not have access to absolute knowledge. However, we can share and discuss to come close to it. To me, this is the true meaning of peer review. As there are many researchers in the world, there can be many opinions on a research work. Hence the most reliable peer review possible would be one in which all the researchers in one field are checking the work and giving an opinion. In practice (and keeping realistic) for publication, it is performed by a few (in my experience, sometimes even one) researcher. However, peer review goes well beyong the publication process. As researchers, I believe we publish to get peer review, inasmuch as any colleague, any peer, looking at a paper is somehow evaluating it, reviewing it.

Peer review gives you the chance to improve your work based on the recommendation from the experts in your fields. The recommendation from peer reviews which is otherwise not available will help in selecting your future research strategies.

Peer review is important because no one has an absolute appreciation of science, we all have biases. It is also supposed to ensure that one's work is not missing key elements, does show strong results or that the content is in line with the scope of the journal. All these elements are central to ensure that research is going forward and is supported by previous work.

Peer review is crucial for maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific literature. It ensures that research is rigorously evaluated by experts in the field, who provide valuable feedback to enhance and refine the research questions and methodologies. The peer review process does not only benefit the author by improving the robustness and clarity of their work but it also advances the overall scientific community by promoting high standards and fostering trust in published findings.

From experience, one challenge of peer review is the lack of openness of the reviewers. Nowadays, and from my experience as a young researcher, reviewers do not justify their remarks well. They are more ordering to do things that do not necessary make sense. Discussing with a "peer" means being at the same level, not giving orders. Moreover, there is no science without explanations and this should be reflected in a scientific discussion between two peers.

The main challenge in the peer review process is the availability of experts in the field to review the work. This creates the delay in the publication process. Because of the unavailability of the experts the work is transferred to non-experts which in turn can not decide the maritness of the research. The peer reviever's knowledge is the only method to decide the data accuracy. Peer review process are sometimes biased to certain countries.

I believe post-publication evaluation by any means such as comments, emails, etc should be allowed by any community member of that field. The author knows his/her paper more than any other person so the authors should be allowed to submit any new related data, improved data post publication. This can be the submitted as associated data with the original paper.

the authors should be encouraged to involve more with the audiences who try to contact them regarding the published research. The authors are also encouraged to submit any other less important but related study data in separated files to helps the readers to understand the study well. The reviewer's comments are the best reflection of author's work and always be considered in a positive sense. A double blinded review process always help in the best outcome for the advancement of the knowledge.