ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2014
Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining 'rational cheating' in peer review.
Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A narrative review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Improving Scientific Writing Skills and Publishing Capacity by Developing University-Based Editing System and Writing Programs.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Review
- Predatory Publishing Practices Corrode the Credibility of Science.Journal of Korean medical science · 2015Article
- Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.Journal of Korean medical science · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review is the pillar of the integrity of science communication. It is often beset with flaws as well as accusations of unreliability and lack of predictive validity. 'Rational cheating' by reviewers is a threat to the validity of peer review. It may diminish the value of good papers by unfavourable appraisals of the reviewers whose own works have lower scientific merits. This article analyzes the mechanics and defects of peer review and focuses on rational cheating in peer review, its implications, and options to restrain it.
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.