"Dear Editor, may I speak with you?"

The role of the editor-in-chief, or sometimes an associate editor, is pivotal in determining the fate of a manuscript submitted for publication in scientific journals. This decision-making process should involve a willingness to engage in discussions regarding the outcomes of submitted works. Many journals explicitly outline in their submission guidelines that once a decision on manuscript rejection is made, that decision is final and cannot be appealed by the authors. This policy can create a significant barrier for authors seeking clarity or reconsideration. Moreover, several journals impose limits on the number of rounds of review during the peer-review process. These restrictions can significantly diminish the authors' chances to thoroughly address the reviewers' comments and opinions, potentially overlooking valuable feedback that could enhance the quality of their work. This commentary advocates for a paradigm shift in how editors handle communications with authors during the peer review process. It emphasizes the need for a more flexible and open approach, where editors foster a dialogue with authors about their submissions. Such open lines of communication are crucial for cultivating a fair and transparent peer-review experience that benefits all parties involved, ultimately leading to higher-quality published research.