ArticleBritish dental journal2016
Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer.
Article in British dental journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retractions in Otolaryngology Publications.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025Article
- The Necessities for the Transparent Peer-Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2021Article
- Transparency and open access in CF research.Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society · 2020Article
- The role of scientific journal editors during the COVID-19 pandemic.Neurologia · 2020Article
- Preprints in Medicine: Useful or Harmful?Frontiers in medicine · 2020Article
- Dental publishing: Peer review reviewed.British dental journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The peer-review process is a fundamental component in the advancement of science. In this process, independent reviewers evaluate the quality of a manuscript and its suitability for publication in a particular scientific journal. Thus, to favour the publication of the highest-level information, the peer-review system should be as unbiased as possible. Although the peer-review system is the most commonly used method to select manuscripts for publication, it has several potential limitations. The main objective of this manuscript is to discuss some limitations of the peer-review system and suggest potential solutions from the perspective of an author and reviewer. This article may contribute to the always-dynamic development of the peer-review process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26917302What 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.