ArticleScience and engineering ethics2016
Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- From rejection to formative development: recalibrating decisions for under-resourced authors.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Peer review: historical evolution and reviewers' learning.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- Current developments of Psychological Research and the use of AI.Psychological research · 2026Article
- 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
- Prevalence of hyperprolific authors in sports medicine and musculoskeletal health and implications on research attention.PloS one · 2026Article
- Subconscious value influences on science.Studies in history and philosophy of science · 2025Article
- Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing.PloS one · 2025Article
- Navigating the Revision Process: Best Practices for Authors and Expectations from the Editor's Perspective.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- How can meta-research be used to evaluate and improve the quality of research in the field of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine?Integrative medicine research · 2024Article
- Racism and censorship in the editorial and peer review process.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- Article
- Inequity in Peer Review in Communication Sciences and Disorders.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2022Article
- Trends in Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Publications.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Revisiting selected ethical aspects of current clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Review
- On the fate of social networking sites of deceased academics in the Covid-19 era and beyond.Current research in behavioral sciences · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Common Topics of Publication and Levels of Evidence in the Current Hand Surgery Literature.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2019Article
- The Problem Is Not Professional Publishing, But the Publish-or-Perish Culture.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A growing body of literature has identified potential problems that can compromise the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review, including inadequate review, inconsistent reviewer reports, reviewer biases, and ethical transgressions by reviewers. We examine the evidence concerning these problems and discuss proposed reforms, including double-blind and open review. Regardless of the outcome of additional research or attempts at reforming the system, it is clear that editors are the linchpin of peer review, since they make decisions that have a significant impact on the process and its outcome. We consider some of the steps editors should take to promote quality, fairness and integrity in different stages of the peer review process and make some recommendations for editorial conduct and decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25633924What 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.