ReviewClinical and translational science2021
Reimagining the peer-review system for translational health science journals.
Review in Clinical and translational science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Everybody hurts: The Reviewer-Imposed Pain (RIP) matrix.Medical education · 2026Article
- Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A narrative review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Hydroxychloroquine use during the first COVID-19 wave: a case study highlighting the urgent need to enhance research practices within the publication ecosystem.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Fraud: A Growing Threat to Academia's Credibility.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2024Article
- Research integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of health science researchers at an Academic Health Science Center.Accountability in research · 2023Article
- One size does not fit all: an exploratory interview study on how translational researchers navigate the current academic reward system.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Shorter might not always be better: the case for longer antibiotic therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia. Reply of the Editor in Chief.Intensive care medicine · 2022Article
- A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges.Journal for general philosophy of science = Zeitschrift fur allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie · 2022Article
- Advances in Experimental Research About Periodontitis: Lessons from the Past, Ideas for the Future.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
- Review
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
Abstract
Retractions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) papers in high impact journals, such as The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, have been panned as major scientific fraud in public media. The initial reaction to this news was to seek out scapegoats and blame individual authors, peer-reviewers, editors, and journals for wrong doing. This paper suggests that scapegoating a few individuals for faulty science is a myopic approach to the more profound problem with peer-review. Peer-review in its current limited form cannot be expected to adequately address the scope and complexity of large interdisciplinary science research collaboration, which is central in translational research. In addition, empirical studies on the effectiveness of traditional peer-review reveal its very real potential for bias and groupthink; as such, expectations regarding the capacity and effectiveness of the current peer review process are unrealistic. This paper proposes a new vision of peer-review in translational science that, on the one hand, would allow for early release of a manuscript to ensure expediency, whereas also creating a forum or a collective of various experts to actively comment, scrutinize, and even build on the research under review. The aim would be to not only generate open discussion and oversight respecting the quality and limitations of the research, but also to assess the extent and the means for that knowledge to translate into social benefit.
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.