ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2012
Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings.
Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The state of the art in peer review.FEMS microbiology letters · 2018Article
- Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Article
- Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior.Science and engineering ethics · 2017Article
- Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.Journal of Korean medical science · 2015Review
- Using science and psychology to improve the dissemination and evaluation of scientific work.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2014Article
- Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2013Article
- Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2012Article
- An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Allocating funding for research often entails the review of the publications authored by a scientist or a group of scientists. For practical reasons, in many cases this review cannot be performed by a sufficient number of specialists in the core domain of the reviewed publications. In the meanwhile, each scientist reads thoroughly, on average, about 88 scientific articles per year, and the evaluative information that scientists can provide about these articles is currently lost. I suggest that aggregating in an online database reviews or ratings on the publications that scientists read anyhow can provide important information that can revolutionize the evaluation processes that support funding decisions. I also suggest that such aggregation of reviews can be encouraged by a system that would provide a publicly available review portfolio for each scientist, without prejudicing the anonymity of reviews. I provide some quantitative estimates on the number and distribution of reviews and ratings that can be obtained.
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.