ReviewF1000Research2017
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.
Review in F1000Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
61 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts.eLife · 2019Pooled it
- Pediatric Cardiology Editors: Insights, Challenges, and Future Growth Opportunities.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- Indigenous excellence: confronting racism and complicity in peer review.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Reviewer recommendations and editorial outcomes in peer review: a longitudinal analysis of agreement and disagreement across review rounds.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Evolution of manuscript peer review: expanding roles in exercise rehabilitation research.Journal of exercise rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of the researcher-led "Peerspectives" peer review training course on review quality, knowledge, and skills among doctoral students in the biomedical sciences: a pre-post study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Paying peer reviewers: benefits, risks, and challenges.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Symbolic scarcity and epistemic waste: a systems theory of academic publishing failure.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Review
- The art of sharing: From research to outreach in the social media era.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Measuring the Quality of Species List Contents.Bioscience · 2026Article
- Beyond predatory journals: peer review transparency as a preventive strategy for editorial integrity in scholarly communication.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Impact of leading plant research centers of excellence on the scientific and socio-economic development in Europe.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Strategic decoupling between grant and publication language in AI and cancer research: a cross-national LLM-assisted analysis.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Decentralized knowledge assessment.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2025Article
- Advancing open science: The evolving role of preprints in biomedical research.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Article
- The changing roles of scientific journals.mBio · 2024Review
- Examining uncertainty in journal peer reviewers' recommendations: a cross-sectional study.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought.Learned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers · 2023Article
- The power of peer networking for improving STEM faculty job applications: a successful pilot programme.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Recommendations and guidelines for creating scholarly biomedical journals: A scoping review.PloS one · 2023Article
1 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
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.
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.