ArticlePloS one2011
Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tips and tricks for writing constructive peer reviews.Conservation physiology · 2025Article
- To combat poor quality research, eliminate publication requirements.EXCLI journal · 2024Article
- Incentives for Research Effort: An Evolutionary Model of Publication Markets with Double-Blind and Open Review.Computational economics · 2023Article
- Article
- The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures.Scientometrics · 2018Article
- A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.F1000Research · 2017Review
- What is open peer review? A systematic review.F1000Research · 2017Article
- The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review.F1000Research · 2016Review
- Ironing out the statistical wrinkles in "ten ironic rules".NeuroImage · 2013Article
- Authorship problems in scholarly journals: considerations for authors, peer reviewers and editors.Rheumatology international · 2013Article
- Peer Review: Publication's Gold Standard.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review is fundamentally a cooperative process between scientists in a community who agree to review each other's work in an unbiased fashion. Peer review is the foundation for decisions concerning publication in journals, awarding of grants, and academic promotion. Here we perform a laboratory study of open and closed peer review based on an online game. We show that when reviewer behavior was made public under open review, reviewers were rewarded for refereeing and formed significantly more cooperative interactions (13% increase in cooperation, P = 0.018). We also show that referees and authors who participated in cooperative interactions had an 11% higher reviewing accuracy rate (P = 0.016). Our results suggest that increasing cooperation in the peer review process can lead to a decreased risk of reviewing errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.