ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2019
Guidelines for open peer review implementation.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveraging artificial intelligence in the peer review of neurosurgical research articles.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.British journal of biomedical science · 2024Review
- Recognizing the value of meta-research and making it easier to find.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023Article
- For a paradigm shift in peer review, bold steps need to be taken.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Using meta-research to foster diverse, equitable, and inclusive collaborative research networks.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2023Article
- Quality peer review is mandatory for scientific journals: ethical constraints, computers, and progress of communication with the reviewers of International Orthopaedics.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Reproducibility and Scientific Integrity of Big Data Research in Urban Public Health and Digital Epidemiology: A Call to Action.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Investing in the Academic Writing: Training Future Reviewers and Sustaining Efficient and Quality Peer Review.Cureus · 2022Review
- Seven steps to enhance Open Science practices in animal science.PNAS nexus · 2022Article
- Article
- Peer review: concepts, variants and controversies.Singapore medical journal · 2022Article
- Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Article
- Should we open the reviewing process.Food technology and biotechnology · 2021Article
- CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility.F1000Research · 2021Article
- Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
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
Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. As more journals move to implement and experiment with the myriad of innovations covered by this term, there is a clear need for best practice guidelines to guide implementation. This brief article aims to address this knowledge gap, reporting work based on an interactive stakeholder workshop to create best-practice guidelines for editors and journals who wish to transition to OPR. Although the advice is aimed mainly at editors and publishers of scientific journals, since this is the area in which OPR is at its most mature, many of the principles may also be applicable for the implementation of OPR in other areas (e.g., books, conference submissions).
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.