ArticleScientometrics2014
Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism.
Article in Scientometrics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review of simulation models of peer review.Scientometrics · 2019Article
- The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures.Scientometrics · 2018Article
- Reputation or peer review? The role of outliers.Scientometrics · 2018Article
- Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?PloS one · 2017Article
- Editorial behaviors in peer review.SpringerPlus · 2016Article
- Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining 'rational cheating' in peer review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2014Review
- Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication.ScientometricsArticle
- Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review works as the hinge of the scientific process, mediating between research and the awareness/acceptance of its results. While it might seem obvious that science would regulate itself scientifically, the consensus on peer review is eroding; a deeper understanding of its workings and potential alternatives is sorely needed. Employing a theoretical approach supported by agent-based simulation, we examined computational models of peer review, performing what we propose to call
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.