An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing.

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. How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought.Learned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers · 2023
   Article
2. The Academic, Societal and Animal Welfare Benefits of Open Science for Animal Science.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022
   Article
3. Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017
   Article
4. Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior.Science and engineering ethics · 2017
   Article
5. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.F1000Research · 2017
   Review
6. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review.F1000Research · 2016
   Review
7. Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2015
   Review
8. Data publication consensus and controversies.F1000Research · 2014
   Review
9. Using science and psychology to improve the dissemination and evaluation of scientific work.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2014
   Article
10. Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2013
    Article

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

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.