I already have an editorial position that takes up the time I can allot for reviewing papers, but I will mention this to a few of my fellow statisticians to see if any of them are interested.
Thank you very much!
Despite the consensus, I thought this reference should be of interest:
i haven’t read this yet, but i like the contentious nature of it: Is Peer Review a Good Idea? … may share my thoughts after going thru it
Essential to the quality of the medical research literature. But it’s a thankless task, under-resourced. ALL medical literature? Several decades ago - before I had any substantial experience of refereeing papers - someone in my university asked whether I’d be willing to join an editorial board. On enquiry I found that the journal in question was on anatomy. My first reaction was, surely papers on anatomy don’t require statistical review, do they? On looking at a few issues, I was less convinced. Think of the research question ‘How many segments does an orange have?’. The sort of paper that got published was the kind that simply said ‘Nine’, without any consideration that the number could well vary between different fruits / individuals.