Who's afraid of peer review?

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

198 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

1. [Extensions of guidelines for reporting types of study in medicine].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2022
   Pooled it
2. Ability of a meta-analysis to prevent redundant research: systematic review of studies on pain from propofol injection.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2014
   Pooled it
3. Effect of educational intervention on physicians and researchers' knowledge, practices and perceptions towards predatory journals: an interventional study.BMC medical education · 2026
   Trial
4. Susceptibility of large language models to hidden nudge injection during simulated medical peer review: a quasi-experimental study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026
   Article
5. Preserving scientific integrity in academic publishing: Navigating artificial intelligence, journal policies, and the impact factor as a quality indicator.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2026
   Review
6. Preserving scientific integrity in academic publishing: Navigating artificial intelligence, journal policies and the impact factor as a quality indicator.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
   Article
7. Establishing patient perceptions and preferences for a journal transparency tool to support health literacy: a mixed-methods online survey and focus group study of Canada-based patients.BMJ open · 2026
   Article
8. Predatory publishing lists: a systematic review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026
   Article
9. Preserving scientific integrity in academic publishing: Navigating artificial intelligence, journal policies, and the impact factor as a quality indicator.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026
   Review
10. Everybody hurts: The Reviewer-Imposed Pain (RIP) matrix.Medical education · 2026
    Article
11. The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
12. Academic writing in medicine and healthcare.Frontiers in medicine · 2025
    Review
13. Do orthopaedics surgeons have any idea what predatory journals are?:(cross-sectional study).Heliyon · 2024
    Article
14. Predatory publishing in medical education: a rapid scoping review.BMC medical education · 2024
    Article
15. Common issues of systematic reviews in the sports and exercise medicine field.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2024
    Article
16. Development and validation of an instrument to assess the knowledge and perceptions of predatory journals.Heliyon · 2023
    Article
17. Submitting a Manuscript to a Scientific Journal.Respiratory care · 2023
    Review
18. Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2023
    Review
19. Journal impact factors and the future of open access publishing.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023
    Article
20. The Elusive Nature of Truth in Scientific Studies and the Importance of Peer Review.Translational vision science & technology · 2023
    Article

138 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Science communication: Power of community.2013
• Commented on by
  Science communication: Quality at stake.2013
• Commented on by
  Science communication: Flawed citation indexing.2013
• Commented on by
  Publish and perish.2016
• Commented on by
  Predatory Publishing: An Emerging Threat to the Medical Literature.2017

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as