ArticleRoyal Society open science2022
Post-publication critique at top-ranked journals across scientific disciplines: a cross-sectional assessment of policies and practice.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2022. 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.
- Concordance between European medicine agency good clinical practice inspections and medical literature: a meta-research survey.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Rethinking peer review: ethics and blind spots of scientific gatekeeping.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2025Article
- Post-publication peer review and the identification of methodological and reporting issues in COVID-19 trials: a qualitative study.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- The Peer Review Crisis Demands Radical Reform: Why Reviewers Should Become Paid Professional Referees.Cureus · 2025Article
- Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- PubMed captures more fine-grained bibliographic data on scientific commentary than Web of Science: a comparative analysis.BMJ health & care informatics · 2024Article
- Better nanoscience through open, collaborative, and critical discussions.Materials horizons · 2024Review
- Application of AI in Sepsis: Citation Network Analysis and Evidence Synthesis.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024Article
- A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Article
- Inaccuracy in the Scientific Record and Open Postpublication Critique.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
- Scientific Journals Should Encourage, Not Hinder, Debates About Their Published Papers.EJIFCC · 2023Article
- Constructive and obsessive criticism in science.European journal of clinical investigation · 2022Article
- Post-publication critique at top-ranked journals across scientific disciplines: a cross-sectional assessment of policies and practice.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
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
Journals exert considerable control over letters, commentaries and online comments that criticize prior research (post-publication critique). We assessed policies (Study One) and practice (Study Two) related to post-publication critique at 15 top-ranked journals in each of 22 scientific disciplines (
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.