ArticlePloS one2021
A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Good clinical and radiological results following remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Pooled it
- Supporting Effective Peer Review at Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Valuing contributions to peer review: A shared responsibility.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Article
- How to write an effective journal peer review using a staged writing approach: a best-practice guide for early-career researchers.International journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Rapid methods for identifying barriers and solutions to improve access to community health services: a scoping review.BJGP open · 2023Article
- Rapid methods for identifying barriers and solutions to improve access to community health services: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: An international cross-sectional survey.PloS one · 2023Article
- Physician-Scientists: Fixing the Leaking Pipeline - A Scoping Review.Medical science educator · 2022Article
- Article
- 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
- Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors.PloS one · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeer review is widely used in academic fields to assess a manuscript's significance and to improve its quality for publication. This scoping review will assess existing peer review guidelines and/or checklists intended for reviewers of biomedical journals and provide an overview on the review guidelines.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) databases were searched for review guidelines from the date of inception until February 19, 2021. There was no date restriction nor article type restriction. In addition to the database search, websites of journal publishers and non-publishers were additionally hand-searched.
resultsOf 14,633 database publication records and 24 website records, 65 publications and 14 websites met inclusion criteria for the review (78 records in total). From the included records, a total of 1,811 checklist items were identified. The items related to Methods, Results, and Discussion were found to be the highly discussed in reviewer guidelines.
conclusionThis review identified existing literature on peer review guidelines and provided an overview of the current state of peer review guides. Review guidelines were varying by journals and publishers. This calls for more research to determine the need to use uniform review standards for transparent and standardized peer review. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this study has been registered at Research Registry (www.researchregistry.com): reviewregistry881.
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.