ArticleFEMS microbiology letters2018
The state of the art in peer review.
Article in FEMS microbiology letters, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peer review: historical evolution and reviewers' learning.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- Knowledge preservation in the era of big science and AI: strategies for sustainable scientific research.Nature communications · 2026Review
- Process and Issues with Review of Manuscripts for Health-Related Journals.Journal of community health · 2026Article
- Prompt injection in manuscripts: exploiting loopholes or crossing ethical lines?Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Peer-review ownership in the AI era.EMBO reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Can I trust this paper?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Predatory publishing in medical education: a rapid scoping review.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.F1000Research · 2024Article
- How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought.Learned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers · 2023Article
- Article
- Ten simple rules for failing successfully in academia.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- An overview of innovations in the external peer review of journal manuscripts.Wellcome open research · 2022Review
- Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Asthma in Adult Patients with COVID-19. Prevalence and Risk of Severe Disease.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021Article
- Open Accessibility in Education Research: Enhancing the Credibility, Equity, Impact, and Efficiency of Research.Educational psychologist · 2021Article
- Pandemic publication: correction and erratum in COVID-19 publications.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Predatory Publishers/Journals in Medical Sciences: How to Avoid, Stop, and What to Do after Being Scammed by Them?Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2020Review
- Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Article
- The limitations to our understanding of peer review.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scholarly communication is in a perpetual state of disruption. Within this, peer review of research articles remains an essential part of the formal publication process, distinguishing it from virtually all other modes of communication. In the last several years, there has been an explosive wave of innovation in peer review research, platforms, discussions, tools and services. This is largely coupled with the ongoing and parallel evolution of scholarly communication as it adapts to rapidly changing environments, within what is widely considered as the 'open research' or 'open science' movement. Here, we summarise the current ebb and flow around changes to peer review and consider its role in a modern digital research and communications infrastructure and suggest why uptake of new models of peer review appears to have been so low compared to what is often viewed as the 'traditional' method of peer review. Finally, we offer some insight into the potential futures of scholarly peer review and consider what impacts this might have on the broader scholarly research ecosystem. In particular, we focus on the key traits of certification and reputation, moderation and quality control and engagement incentives, and discuss how these interact with socio-technical aspects of peer review and academic culture.
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.