ArticlemBio2023
Problems with Peer Review Shine a Light on Gaps in Scientific Training.
Article in mBio, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of DeepSeek AI and Human Reviewers in Structured Evaluation of Neurosurgical Manuscripts: A Pilot Study.Journal of neurological surgery reports · 2026Article
- Behavior characteristics of peer reviewers in medical journals: a survey from China.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Tackling the problem of quality in peer review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Tips and tricks for addressing and responding to peer reviews.Conservation physiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Training the Gatekeepers of Research Integrity: Enhancing peer review and editorial Process excellence by simulated training programs.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Tips and tricks for writing constructive peer reviews.Conservation physiology · 2025Article
- The changing roles of scientific journals.mBio · 2024Review
- ThemBio · 2024Article
- Methodological and Statistical Considerations for Cross-Sectional, Case-Control, and Cohort Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- How to be a good reviewer: A step-by-step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.