ReviewResearch integrity and peer review2018
The changing forms and expectations of peer review.
Review in Research integrity and peer review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 40 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 172 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing the trustworthiness of non-randomized studies of interventions: a survey of international experts.BMC medicine · 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
- Prompt injection in manuscripts: exploiting loopholes or crossing ethical lines?Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Symbolic scarcity and epistemic waste: a systems theory of academic publishing failure.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Review
- Measuring the Quality of Species List Contents.Bioscience · 2026Article
- Peer-review ownership in the AI era.EMBO reports · 2026Article
- Nature connectedness framework for adolescents: an integrative review.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Beyond predatory journals: peer review transparency as a preventive strategy for editorial integrity in scholarly communication.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Leveraging artificial intelligence in the peer review of neurosurgical research articles.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Changing peer review practices: transforming roles and future challenges.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Tips and tricks for writing constructive peer reviews.Conservation physiology · 2025Article
- Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values.Accountability in research · 2024Article
- Peer review trends in six fisheries science journals.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.British journal of biomedical science · 2024Review
- Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought.Learned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The quality and integrity of the scientific literature have recently become the subject of heated debate. Due to an apparent increase in cases of scientific fraud and irreproducible research, some have claimed science to be in a state of crisis. A key concern in this debate has been the extent to which science is capable of self-regulation. Among various mechanisms, the peer review system in particular is considered an essential gatekeeper of both quality and sometimes even integrity in science. However, the allocation of responsibility for integrity to the peer review system is fairly recent and remains controversial. In addition, peer review currently comes in a wide variety of forms, developed in the expectation they can address specific problems and concerns in science publishing. At present, there is a clear need for a systematic analysis of peer review forms and the concerns underpinning them, especially considering a wave of experimentation fuelled by internet technologies and their promise to improve research integrity and reporting. We describe the emergence of current peer review forms by reviewing the scientific literature on peer review and by adding recent developments based on information from editors and publishers. We analyse the rationale for developing new review forms and discuss how they have been implemented in the current system. Finally, we give a systematisation of the range of discussed peer review forms. We pay detailed attention to the emergence of the expectation that peer review can maintain 'the integrity of science's published record', demonstrating that this leads to tensions in the academic debate about the responsibilities and abilities of the peer review system.
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.