ArticleEJIFCC2014
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.
Article in EJIFCC, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
107 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Effect of Music Therapy on Psychological Outcomes for Neurological Conditions: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- The impact of working in academia on researchers' mental health and well-being: A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer-Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake among African-American men: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Psycho-Physiological Stress Recovery in Outdoor Nature-Based Interventions: A Systematic Review of the Past Eight Years of Research.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Pooled it
- Effect of educational intervention on physicians and researchers' knowledge, practices and perceptions towards predatory journals: an interventional study.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- The power of peers.The European journal of general practice · 2026Article
- Educator's Blueprint: Seven Strategies for Turning Peer Review Into Scholarly Growth.AEM education and training · 2026Article
- Are Keynote and Invited Speakers at State Behavior Analytic Conferences Experts on Their Presentation Topics?Behavior analysis in practice · 2026Article
- 10 Things I Wish I Knew Before My First Peer Review.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Review
- The Challenges of Scientific Publishing: An Editor-In-Chief's Perspective.Fundamental & clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Motivations and barriers to engaging in peer review: a qualitative study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Peeling Back the Curtain: A Primer on the General Peer-Review and Publication Process in Behavior Analysis.Behavior analysis in practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Current capabilities of large language models as peer reviewers for manuscripts submitted to ophthalmology-related journals.Medicine · 2026Article
- The effect of manuscript characteristics on quality assessment of scientific manuscripts in psychology.PloS one · 2026Article
- Using the shark fin trade to teach molecular biology and understand the ongoing biodiversity crisis.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2025Article
- Supporting medical physics resident development through mentored journal peer review experiences.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Camouflaging Autism in Pursuit of Friendship and Intimate Relationships: A Systematic Review.Autism in adulthood · 2025Review
- Ethics Discourse in a Recurring Journal Format: A Proposal to Increase Ethics Discussion and Supports for Ethical Decision-Making.Behavior analysis in practice · 2025Article
47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27683470PMC4975196What 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.