ArticleCroatian medical journal2012
Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring reviewer self-assessment in the context of academic peer review.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Quality peer review is mandatory for scientific journals: ethical constraints, computers, and progress of communication with the reviewers of International Orthopaedics.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Proper Scholarly Writing for Non-Native English-Speaking Authors: Choosing Active and Passive Voice, Rewording, and Refining Texts.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- Modern Health Journalism and the Impact of Social Media.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Top Central Asian Educational Institutions on Publons: Analysis of Researchers and Reviewers.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers.Reumatologia · 2021Article
- Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: How to Choose a Journal?International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2021Review
- Integrity of clinical research conduct, reporting, publishing, and post-publication promotion in rheumatology.Clinical rheumatology · 2020Review
- Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- How do I peer-review a scientific article?-a personal perspective.Annals of translational medicine · 2018Article
- Preserving the Integrity of Citations and References by All Stakeholders of Science Communication.Journal of Korean medical science · 2015Review
- Financial Incentives to Reviewers: Double-edged Sword.Journal of Korean medical science · 2015Article
- Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.Journal of Korean medical science · 2015Review
- Educating science editors: is there a comprehensive strategy?Croatian medical journal · 2014Article
- Systematic and open identification of researchers and authors: focus on open researcher and contributor ID.Journal of Korean medical science · 2014Review
- Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining 'rational cheating' in peer review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2014Review
- Supporting and enhancing peer review in the BJGP.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Article
- Upgrading instructions for authors of scholarly journals.Croatian medical journal · 2014Article
- Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact.Croatian medical journal · 2014Article
- Peer-review policy and guidelines for Biochemia Medica Journal.Biochemia medica · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current scholarly publications heavily rely on high quality peer review. Peer review, albeit imperfect, is aimed at improving science writing and editing. Evidence supporting peer review as a guarantor of the quality of biomedical publications is currently lacking. Its outcomes are largely dependent on the credentials of the reviewers. Several lines of evidence suggest that predictors of the best contributors to the process include affiliation to a good University and proper research training. Though the options to further improve peer review are currently limited, experts are in favor of formal education and courses on peer review for all contributors to this process. Long-term studies are warranted to assess the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.
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.