ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2021
Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methodological Pluralism in Surgical Evidence: from Concept to Practice.Surgery in practice and science · 2026Review
- Evaluating the discoverability of supporting research materials in ClinicalTrials.gov for US federally funded COVID-19 clinical studies.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- A survey of surveys: an evaluation of the quality of published surveys in neurosurgery.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Quality peer review is mandatory for scientific journals: ethical constraints, computers, and progress of communication with the reviewers of International Orthopaedics.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Evidence-based policies in public health to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.Future virology · 2023Review
- Handling Ethics Dumping and Neo-Colonial Research: From the Laboratory to the Academic Literature.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2022Article
- COVID-19 Health Policies: The Need for Transparent Data Sharing Between Scientists, Governments, and Policymakers.Oman medical journal · 2022Article
- Article
- Corona exhaustion (CORONEX): COVID-19-induced exhaustion grinding down humanity.Current research in behavioral sciences · 2021Article
- Adjusting the use of preprints to accommodate the 'quality' factor in response to COVID-19.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2021Article
- Article
- Accessibility to Non-COVID Health Services in the World During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Review.Frontiers in public health · 2021Review
- Peer review during demanding times: maintain rigorous standards.Scientometrics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Retractions of COVID-19 literature in both preprints and the peer-reviewed literature serve as a reminder that there are still challenging issues underlying the integrity of the biomedical literature. The risks to academia become larger when such retractions take place in high-ranking biomedical journals. In some cases, retractions result from unreliable or nonexistent data, an issue that could easily be avoided by having open data policies, but there have also been retractions due to oversight in peer review and editorial verification. As COVID-19 continues to affect academics and societies around the world, failures in peer review might also constitute a public health risk. The effectiveness by which COVID-19 literature is corrected, including through retractions, depends on the stringency of measures in place to detect errors and to correct erroneous literature. It also relies on the stringent implementation of open data policies.
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.