ArticleeLife2020
Journal policies and editors' opinions on peer review.
Article in eLife, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluation of the replicability of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of the effects of health interventions.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Article
- Journal data-sharing policies and its impact in publications: A cross-sectional study protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- Ethics: The Elixir of Publications.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Article
- Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing.PloS one · 2025Article
- Extent of Open Science Practices in the Reporting of Real World Evidence Research.International journal of population data science · 2025Article
- A choice, not an obligation : Releasing scientific software as open source should be the responsibility of the authors.EMBO reports · 2024Article
- Creating diverse and inclusive scientific practices for research datasets and dissemination.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- A health sciences researcher's experience of manuscript review comments, 2020-2022.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2023Article
- Predicting and reasoning about replicability using structured groups.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Systematic reviewers' perspectives on replication of systematic reviews: A survey.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
- The role of results in deciding to publish: A direct comparison across authors, reviewers, and editors based on an online survey.PloS one · 2023Article
- Perspectives on Data Sharing in Persons With Spinal Cord Injury.Neurotrauma reports · 2023Article
- Article
- How often do cancer researchers make their data and code available and what factors are associated with sharing?BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Reimagining peer review as an expert elicitation process.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Reviewer's Checklists for Evaluating Scientific Manuscripts.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Can Peer Review Be Kinder? Supportive Peer Review: A Re-Commitment to Kindness and a Call to Action.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2022Article
- How to bring peer review ghostwriters out of the dark.Molecular biology of the cell · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 editors of journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. We found that 49% of the journals surveyed checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, that 61% allowed authors to recommend both for and against specific reviewers, and that less than 6% used a form of open peer review. Most journals did not have an official policy on altering reports from reviewers, but 91% of editors identified at least one situation in which it was appropriate for an editor to alter a report. Editors were also asked for their views on five issues related to publication ethics. A majority expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their own journals, and replication studies. Our results provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role and transparency of peer review in scholarly publishing.
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.