Finasteride in Young Men: Effects on Semen and Hormones?

 Finasteride in Young Men: Effects on Semen and Hormones?

Mohamed Farouk Allam, MPH, PhD (1,2)

1. Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

2. Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain.

 

Qeios (2025): https://www.qeios.com/read/16UWBQ

 

DOI: 10.32388/16UWBQ

 

Abstract

Finasteride is widely used to treat male androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and has been shown to significantly improve hair count and appearance compared to placebo. Despite its effectiveness, concerns remain about its potential sexual adverse effects. While some studies suggest these effects are rare and reversible, the evidence is inconsistent. Notably, the dosage appears to influence reproductive outcomes: the common 1 mg dose shows minimal impact on sperm parameters, whereas the higher 5 mg dose is linked to reduced sperm count, motility, and volume, highlighting a dose dependent effect and individual variability. A widely cited 2014 study by Irwig suggesting long-term sexual side effects has major flaws, including selection bias, lack of a control group, small sample size, and inadequate statistical methods. Most participants were recruited from a forum for users with negative experiences, making the findings unrepresentative. In contrast, a 2013 prospective study by Samplaski and collaborators found that most men saw improved sperm counts after stopping finasteride, with hormone levels and sperm quality remaining stable. Overall, while finasteride may affect fertility in some men, robust conclusions about long-term sexual side effects require larger, better-designed prospective studies to ensure accuracy and generalizability.

 

Keywords: Finasteride; semen parameters; androgen levels; 5-α-reductase inhibitors; sexual functions; review.

 

Mohamed Farouk Allam. (2025). Finasteride in Young Men: Effects on Semen and Hormones?. Qeios. doi:10.32388/16UWBQ.

 

https://www.qeios.com/read/16UWBQ

Open-Access Publishing and the Reviewer Crisis: Rethinking Incentives for Quality Peer Review

Open-Access Publishing and the Reviewer Crisis: Rethinking Incentives for Quality Peer Review

 

Mohamed Farouk Allam (1,2)

1. Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Egypt; 2. Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cordoba, Spain.

 

Qeios (2025): https://www.qeios.com/read/P3T1E1.

 

DOI:10.32388/P3T1E1

 

Abstract

 

Open-access journals often charge article publication fees, typically amounting to thousands of USD or Euros. Fee waivers are generally limited to manuscripts from low-income countries. The quality of published manuscripts, whether in open-access or APC-based journals, depends heavily on external reviewers and associated editors. Their critical role ensures originality, rigorous methodology, and impactful research. However, reviewers receive minimal rewards, such as a certificate, acknowledgment, or discounts on future publications. These incentives are usually insufficient to attract senior researchers, who frequently decline the numerous review requests they receive daily. As a result, the task often falls to junior researchers with fewer publications and limited experience in high-impact research. This lack of adequate recognition and tangible benefits for reviewers poses challenges in maintaining high-quality peer review standards. Considering the significant revenue journals earn from APCs, particularly in prestigious gold open-access models, offering substantial financial incentives to reviewers could be a prudent strategy. Such measures would encourage senior experts to contribute their time and expertise, ensuring a more rigorous and high-quality review process.

 

Keywords: Open-access journals; article processing charges; gold open access; review; Publication fees.

 

Mohamed Farouk Allam. (2025). Open-Access Publishing and the Reviewer Crisis: Rethinking Incentives for Quality Peer Review. Qeios. doi:10.32388/P3T1E1.

 

https://www.qeios.com/read/P3T1E1