ArticleBMC medicine2014
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system.
Article in BMC medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Pooled it
- Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2016Pooled it
- The utility of medico-legal databases for public health research: a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications using the National Coronial Information System.Health research policy and systems · 2016Pooled it
- SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM: Element-Level Annotated Dataset and Large Language Model Approach for Assessing Randomized Controlled Trial Reporting.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Susceptibility of large language models to hidden nudge injection during simulated medical peer review: a quasi-experimental study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Why research articles in acute care surgery get rejected: 10 critical mistakes to avoid.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2026Article
- Publishing sleep and chronobiology research without barriers.Npj biological timing and sleep · 2025Article
- Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing.PloS one · 2025Article
- How to write an effective journal peer review using a staged writing approach: a best-practice guide for early-career researchers.International journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Assessment of YouTube as an online educational tool in teaching laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: A LAP-VEGaS study.Surgery in practice and science · 2023Article
- Reimagining the peer-review system for translational health science journals.Clinical and translational science · 2021Review
- Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Administrative Discretion in Scientific Funding: Evidence from a Prestigious Postdoctoral Training Program.Research policy · 2020Article
- The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Adherence to reporting guidelines increases the number of citations: the argument for including a methodologist in the editorial process and peer-review.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Common Topics of Publication and Levels of Evidence in the Current Hand Surgery Literature.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2019Article
- A descriptive analysis of the characteristics and the peer review process of systematic review protocols published in an open peer review journal from 2012 to 2017.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The lack of formal training programs for peer reviewers places the scientific quality of biomedical publications at risk, as the introduction of 'hidden' bias may not be easily recognized by the reader. The exponential increase in the number of manuscripts submitted for publication worldwide, estimated in the millions annually, overburdens the capability of available qualified referees. Indeed, the workload imposed on individual reviewers appears to be reaching a 'breaking point' that may no longer be sustainable. Some journals have made efforts to improve peer review via structured guidelines, courses for referees, and employing biostatisticians to ensure appropriate study design and analyses. Further strategies designed to incentivize and reward peer review work include journals providing continuing medical education (CME) credits to individual referees by defined criteria for timely and high-quality evaluations. Alternative options to supplement the current peer review process consist of 'post-publication peer review,' 'decoupled peer review,' 'collaborative peer review,' and 'portable peer review'. This article outlines the shortcomings and flaws in the current peer review system and discusses new innovative options on the horizon.
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.