Financial Incentives to Reviewers: Double-edged Sword.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Reporting Survey Based Studies - a Primer for Authors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020
   Review
2. Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020
   Article
3. Revisiting Reviewer Rewards: A Critical Commentary on "Incentivizing Peer Reviewers": Exploring Monetary and Nonmonetary Rewards.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Combined Rewarding Mechanisms Can be Implemented to Incentivize the Best Reviewers.2015
• Comment on
  Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.2015

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as