An overview of innovations in the external peer review of journal manuscripts.

Helen Buckley Woods, Johanna Brumberg, Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, Stephen Pinfield, Ludo Waltman

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Wellcome open research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

3citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.F1000Research · 2024
Article
Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review.Research integrity and peer review · 2023
Article
Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other Large Language Models in scholarly peer review.Research square · 2023
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Helen Buckley WoodsResearch on Research Institute and Information School, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S10 2TN, UK.

Johanna BrumbergVolkswagen Stiftung, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9403-4591

Wolfgang KaltenbrunnerResearch on Research Institute and Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Stephen PinfieldResearch on Research Institute and Information School, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S10 2TN, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4696-764X

Ludo WaltmanResearch on Research Institute and Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

Wellcome Trust

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

innovationmeta-summarypeer reviewreview of reviewsscholarly publishing

Identifiers

PMID36879926

DOI10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17715.2

PMCPMC9984734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.