From science to metascience and back: Professional Reviewer, the new figure that breaks the rules of scientific publishing.

Scientific publishing, essential for knowledge dissemination and academic progress, faces a paradox: while publication volume grows rapidly, the reliability and reproducibility of research have decreased, contributing to a "replication crisis." This paper proposes a transformative solution through the establishment of the Professional Reviewer (PR), a specialized figure dedicated solely to research evaluation, operating independently from traditional authorship. Unlike conventional peer reviewers, PRs would undergo specific training in critical assessment, ethics, statistics, and multidisciplinary research methodologies, ensuring a highly standardized and unbiased review process. The PR role would address key issues in scientific publishing: reducing conflicts of interest, enhancing review quality, and relieving researchers from the dual responsibility of producing and reviewing research. The PR model promotes a career structure parallel to that of authors, with metrics to assess review impact. In our vision the introduction of PRs could significantly improve the quality and trustworthiness of scientific publications, reducing biases and inefficiencies within current peer review practices. We suggest implementing pilot studies to evaluate the effectiveness of this model in enhancing publication standards. This structured approach to scientific review parallels professional refereeing in sports, where players and referees have distinct roles but contribute equally to the integrity of the game. Ultimately, we believe that Professional Reviewers can bridge gaps in quality assurance, fostering a more reliable, transparent, and efficient scientific publishing ecosystem.