ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2015
Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.
Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Paying peer reviewers: benefits, risks, and challenges.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Analysis of Retracted Publications on Artificial Intelligence: Trends, Ethical Concerns, and Scientific Integrity.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Peer Review in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Call for Developing Responsible Integration Guidelines.Nature and science of sleep · 2025Article
- Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Employing Unprofessional Editors for Handling Submissions in Scholarly Journals.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Prejudice, Interests, Jealousy: Inappropriate Peer Reviewers May Be Exacerbating Inequality in Academic Publication in Health Research.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- The potential use of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in healthcare and medical research.PLOS digital health · 2023Review
- Analysis of Retracted Publications in The Biomedical Literature from Turkey.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- Is rapid scientific publication also high quality? Bibliometric analysis of highly disseminated COVID-19 research papers.Learned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers · 2021Article
- Peer Reviewers in Central Asia: Publons Based Analysis.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Top Central Asian Educational Institutions on Publons: Analysis of Researchers and Reviewers.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Building trust in journals and in peer review: need of the hour during the COVID-19 pandemic.Rheumatology international · 2021Article
- Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers.Reumatologia · 2021Article
- Moving towards online rheumatology education in the era of COVID-19.Clinical rheumatology · 2020Review
- Letter to the Editor: Social Media Is a Double-Edged Sword in the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Information and Misinformation on COVID-19: a Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Rewarding the quantity of peer review could harm biomedical research.Biochemia medica · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article overviews currently available options for rewarding peer reviewers. Rewards and incentives may help maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Publishers around the world implemented a variety of financial and nonfinancial mechanisms for incentivizing their best reviewers. None of these is proved effective on its own. A strategy of combined rewards and credits for the reviewers1 creative contributions seems a workable solution. Opening access to reviews and assigning publication credits to the best reviews is one of the latest achievements of digitization. Reviews, posted on academic networking platforms, such as Publons, add to the transparency of the whole system of peer review. Reviewer credits, properly counted and displayed on individual digital profiles, help distinguish the best contributors, invite them to review and offer responsible editorial posts.
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.