ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2012
Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation.
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 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vulnerabilities Prompting Use of Technology and Screen by Mothers of Autistic Children in India: Lived Experiences and Comparison to Scientific Literature.Culture, medicine and psychiatry · 2023Review
- Peer Review in Law Journals.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
- Pandemic publication: correction and erratum in COVID-19 publications.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals.Nature communications · 2019Article
- The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications.Scientometrics · 2019Article
- Guidelines for open peer review implementation.Research integrity and peer review · 2019Article
- The state of the art in peer review.FEMS microbiology letters · 2018Article
- Ten considerations for open peer review.F1000Research · 2018Article
- The changing forms and expectations of peer review.Research integrity and peer review · 2018Review
- Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Article
- Decisions, decisions.eLife · 2017Article
- Article
- What is open peer review? A systematic review.F1000Research · 2017Article
- A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.F1000Research · 2017Review
- The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review.F1000Research · 2016Review
- Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2015Review
- Opening peer-review: the democracy of science.Journal of negative results in biomedicine · 2014Article
- Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities.BMC medical research methodology · 2013Review
- BMC Blood Disorders becomes BMC Hematology: evolving along with the hematology field.BMC hematology · 2013Article
- A new era in sports science: the launch of BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2013Article
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
The traditional forms of scientific publishing and peer review do not live up to all demands of efficient communication and quality assurance in today's highly diverse and rapidly evolving world of science. They need to be advanced and complemented by interactive and transparent forms of review, publication, and discussion that are open to the scientific community and to the public. The advantages of open access, public peer review, and interactive discussion can be efficiently and flexibly combined with the strengths of traditional scientific peer review. Since 2001 the benefits and viability of this approach are clearly demonstrated by the highly successful interactive open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP, www.atmos-chem-phys.net) and a growing number of sister journals launched and operated by the European Geosciences Union (EGU, www.egu.eu) and the open access publisher Copernicus (www.copernicus.org). The interactive open access journals are practicing an integrative multi-stage process of publication and peer review combined with interactive public discussion, which effectively resolves the dilemma between rapid scientific exchange and thorough quality assurance. Key features and achievements of this approach are: top quality and impact, efficient self-regulation and low rejection rates, high attractivity and rapid growth, low costs, and financial sustainability. In fact, ACP and the EGU interactive open access sister journals are by most if not all standards more successful than comparable scientific journals with traditional or alternative forms of peer review (editorial statistics, publication statistics, citation statistics, economic costs, and sustainability). The high efficiency and predictive validity of multi-stage open peer review have been confirmed in a series of dedicated studies by evaluation experts from the social sciences, and the same or similar concepts have recently also been adopted in other disciplines, including the life sciences and economics. Multi-stage open peer review can be flexibly adjusted to the needs and peculiarities of different scientific communities. Due to the flexibility and compatibility with traditional structures of scientific publishing and peer review, the multi-stage open peer review concept enables efficient evolution in scientific communication and quality assurance. It has the potential for swift replacement of hidden peer review as the standard of scientific quality assurance, and it provides a basis for open evaluation in science.
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.