ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2020
Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Retracted Publications on Artificial Intelligence: Trends, Ethical Concerns, and Scientific Integrity.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Leveraging artificial intelligence in the peer review of neurosurgical research articles.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- The Effectiveness and Safety of Tai Chi on Knee Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Redefining cancer research for therapeutic breakthroughs.British journal of cancer · 2024Review
- [Predatory journals: What are they and how to avoid them?]Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2024Article
- Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Creating diverse and inclusive scientific practices for research datasets and dissemination.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Employing Unprofessional Editors for Handling Submissions in Scholarly Journals.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Prejudice, Interests, Jealousy: Inappropriate Peer Reviewers May Be Exacerbating Inequality in Academic Publication in Health Research.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Opportunities to enhance peer review.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2022Article
- An overview of innovations in the external peer review of journal manuscripts.Wellcome open research · 2022Review
- Review
- Fundamental Shifts in Research, Ethics and Peer Review in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of Korean medical science · 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
Peer review is a crucial part of research and publishing. However, it remains imperfect and suffers from bias, lack of transparency, and professional jealousy. It is also overburdened by an increasing quantity of complex papers against the stagnant pool of reviewers, causing delays in peer review. Additionally, many medical, nursing, and healthcare educators, peer reviewers, and authors may not be completely familiar with the current changes in peer review. Moreover, reviewer education and training have unfortunately remained lacking. This is especially crucial since current initiatives to improve the review process are now influenced by factors other than academic needs. Thus, increasing attention has recently focused on ways of streamlining the peer review process and implementing alternative peer-review methods using new technologies and open access models. This article aims to give an overview of the innovative strategies for peer review and to consider perspectives that may be helpful in introducing changes to peer review. Critical assessments of peer review innovations and incentives based on past and present experiences are indispensable. A theoretical appraisal must be balanced by a realistic appraisal of the ethical roles of all stakeholders in enhancing the peer review process. As the peer review system is far from being perfect, identifying and developing core competencies among reviewers, continuing education of researchers, reviewer education and training, and professional engagement of the scientific community in various disciplines may help bridge gaps in an imperfect but indispensable 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.