ReviewResearch integrity and peer review2020
The limitations to our understanding of peer review.
Review in Research integrity and peer review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 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
69 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 336 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of (single-cell method) benchmarks reveals the need for extensibility and interoperability.Genome biology · 2023Pooled it
- The power of peers.The European journal of general practice · 2026Article
- Applicants as reviewers: a mixed methods evaluation of the risks, benefits, and potential of distributed peer review for grant funding allocations.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Discovery Stack Pilot demonstrates the feasibility and outcomes of a scientist-designed peer-review model that separates quality and impact.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Motivations and barriers to engaging in peer review: a qualitative study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Possibilities for the peer review of interdisciplinary research: a small-scale qualitative study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Assessment of Selective Reporting Biases in Studies Included in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- The Unpaid Infrastructure of Cardiovascular Science.JACC. Advances · 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
- Retractions of publications in radiomics: An underestimated problem?European radiology · 2026Review
- Process and Issues with Review of Manuscripts for Health-Related Journals.Journal of community health · 2026Article
- Paying peer reviewers: benefits, risks, and challenges.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Large Language Models for Peer Review in Transplantation Research: Algorithm Validation Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Tackling the problem of quality in peer review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Peer-review ownership in the AI era.EMBO reports · 2026Article
- Tips and tricks for addressing and responding to peer reviews.Conservation physiology · 2026Article
- The effect of manuscript characteristics on quality assessment of scientific manuscripts in psychology.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Reviewers are better equipped to detect fraud than editors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Concordance between European medicine agency good clinical practice inspections and medical literature: a meta-research survey.BMC medicine · 2025Article
9 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review is embedded in the core of our knowledge generation systems, perceived as a method for establishing quality or scholarly legitimacy for research, while also often distributing academic prestige and standing on individuals. Despite its critical importance, it curiously remains poorly understood in a number of dimensions. In order to address this, we have analysed peer review to assess where the major gaps in our theoretical and empirical understanding of it lie. We identify core themes including editorial responsibility, the subjectivity and bias of reviewers, the function and quality of peer review, and the social and epistemic implications of peer review. The high-priority gaps are focused around increased accountability and justification in decision-making processes for editors and developing a deeper, empirical understanding of the social impact of peer review. Addressing this at the bare minimum will require the design of a consensus for a minimal set of standards for what constitutes peer review, and the development of a shared data infrastructure to support this. Such a field requires sustained funding and commitment from publishers and research funders, who both have a commitment to uphold the integrity of the published scholarly record. We use this to present a guide for the future of peer review, and the development of a new research discipline based on the study of peer review.
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.