ArticlePloS one2017
Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screening, sorting, and the feedback cycles that imperil peer review.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Examining uncertainty in journal peer reviewers' recommendations: a cross-sectional study.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews.PloS one · 2022Article
- Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors.PloS one · 2021Article
- Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Article
- Article
- A scoping review of simulation models of peer review.Scientometrics · 2019Article
- The state of the art in peer review.FEMS microbiology letters · 2018Article
- It's Time We Fix the Peer Review System.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2018Article
- The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures.Scientometrics · 2018Article
- A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.F1000Research · 2017Review
- Pattern of peer review proforma of medical journals of Pakistan.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
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
Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.
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.