ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2015
Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.
Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 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
41 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating community Live Reviews into academic publishing: an exploratory study.Research integrity and peer review · 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
- Decentralized knowledge assessment.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2025Article
- The value of joint peer review between early career researchers and supervisors.Trends in cell biology · 2025Article
- Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Inaccuracy in the Scientific Record and Open Postpublication Critique.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
- The critical role of peer reviewers: Challenges and future steps.Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT · 2023Article
- Reimagining peer review as an expert elicitation process.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- An overview of innovations in the external peer review of journal manuscripts.Wellcome open research · 2022Review
- Consistency of covid-19 trial preprints with published reports and impact for decision making: retrospective review.BMJ medicine · 2022Article
- Inaugural Editorial forACS polymers Au · 2021Article
- Peer Review in Law Journals.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
- Pandemic publication: correction and erratum in COVID-19 publications.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Article
- Fate of Manuscripts Rejected by Turkish Archives of Otorhinolaryngology between 2015 and 2017.Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2020Article
- Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Article
- Article
- Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Article
- The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals.Nature communications · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
"Classical peer review" has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for unpaid reviewers. This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues. Based on an initial literature review, we construct a sample of 82 channels of scientific communication covering all forms of review identified by the survey, and analyze the review mechanisms used by each channel. We identify two major trends: the rapidly expanding role of preprint servers (e.g., ArXiv) that dispense with traditional peer review altogether, and the growth of "non-selective review," focusing on papers' scientific quality rather than their perceived importance and novelty. Other potentially important developments include forms of "open review," which remove reviewer anonymity, and interactive review, as well as new mechanisms for post-publication review and out-of-channel reader commentary, especially critical commentary targeting high profile papers. One of the strongest findings of the survey is the persistence of major differences between the peer review processes used by different disciplines. None of these differences is likely to disappear in the foreseeable future. The most likely scenario for the coming years is thus continued diversification, in which different review mechanisms serve different author, reader, and publisher needs. Relatively little is known about the impact of these innovations on the problems they address. These are important questions for future quantitative research.
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.