Scientific Journals are "faith based": is there science behind peer review?

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Systematic review of conceptual criticisms of homeopathy.Heliyon · 2023
   Article
2. Nanopublication-based semantic publishing and reviewing: a field study with formalization papers.PeerJ. Computer science · 2023
   Article
3. Manuscript review continuing medical education: a retrospective investigation of the learning outcomes from this peer reviewer benefit.BMJ open · 2020
   Review
4. Speaking of gender bias.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
   Article
5. Is the Supercourse useful for Latin America?Central Asian journal of global health · 2012
   Article
6. Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy.PloS one · 2011
   Article
7. Multilayer and multimetric quality control: the Supercourse.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2010
   Article
8. Response to Scientific journals are 'faith based': is there a science behind peer review?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2007
   Article
9. Clinical studies in medical journals.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2007
   Article
10. Possible Bias in the Publication Trends of High Impact Factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology Journals -An Analysis of 5 Years' Data.Anesthesia, essays and researches
    Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Clinical studies in medical journals.2007
• Commented on by
  Response to Scientific journals are 'faith based': is there a science behind peer review?2007

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as