1 The retractions came only weeks after BioMed Central.

Another is certainly that it creates life much easier for editors: finding suitable peer reviewers who are prepared to review regularly can be both difficult and frustrating. A third reason may be that journals and publishers are multinational increasingly. Previously, the editor and editorial plank of a journal knew both the scientific field it protected and the people working in it, but it’s almost impossible to end up being sufficiently well connected when both editors and submissions come from all over the world. Having authors suggest the best reviewers may therefore seem like a good idea. In the aftermath of the recent scandals involving fake peer reviewers, many journals have decided to carefully turn off the reviewer-recommendation option on their manuscript-submission systems.We’d likely clean up the toxic environment. 12. Good psychotherapy would be increasing and demand therapists with actual skill, not those who merely speak to their patients about how exactly their medication side effects. 13. My favorite: We’d be required to find out about self-sabotage, the main obstacle to health and happiness. 14. All in all, we’d value our health more by taking more personal responsibility for it, creating mass support for any ongoing company that promotes genuine natural products. We’re able to brainstorm at least 100 more GOOD things that might happen if big pharma collapsed. Will there be area for a pharmaceutical market in a healthy society? I’ll bet presently there is, today but it would not the monster we have.