“Most journals avoid publishing reviews and case studies unless these offer unique and/or paradigm shifting options in enhancing clinical practice” – this was part of my editorial comment in March 2020.
As it happens, I should be more accurate and acknowledge that often original research is suboptimal (for many reasons) and many submissions are consequently rejected (sadly for the researchers). As such a default option is applied (perhaps regrettably so) and the “best” case reports (that are somewhat more immune to the challenge in study design, methodology, sample size, statistical analyses and other basic errors in research undertaking), are successful. This is perhaps a realisation that academic departments should take heed of the diagnosis and offer treatment by re-igniting original research of a higher quality. Perhaps this is also a call to the SEMDSA Executive to lead this process and perhaps initiate and coordinate more collaboration and research in the country/subcontinent.