ArticleLearned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers2023
How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought.
Article in Learned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- Motivations and barriers to engaging in peer review: a qualitative study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of the researcher-led "Peerspectives" peer review training course on review quality, knowledge, and skills among doctoral students in the biomedical sciences: a pre-post study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Paying peer reviewers: benefits, risks, and challenges.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Peer-review ownership in the AI era.EMBO reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Toward a paradox-oriented paradigm of knowing: the form theory of observation and quality in empirical sciences.Frontiers in sociology · 2026Review
- 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
- Critical Contextual Empiricism for Busy People: Scientific Argumentation as Epistemic Exchange.Topoi : an international review of philosophy · 2025Article
- The Growing Demand for Peer Review: Current Challenges and Potential Reforms.British journal of biomedical science · 2025Article
- No evidence that ACE2 or TMPRSS2 drive population disparity in COVID risks.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.F1000Research · 2024Article
- The SCOPE framework - implementing ideals of responsible research assessment.F1000Research · 2023Article
- Shaping the Qualities, Values and Standards of Science. How Reporting Guidelines Improve the Transparency of Biomedical Research.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Article
- The art of validating science: four centuries of peer review.Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia)Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Peer review plays an essential role as one of the cornerstones of the scholarly publishing system. There are many initiatives that aim to improve the way in which peer review is organized, resulting in a highly complex landscape of innovation in peer review. Different initiatives are based on different views on the most urgent challenges faced by the peer review system, leading to a diversity of perspectives on how the system can be improved. To provide a more systematic understanding of the landscape of innovation in peer review, we suggest that the landscape is shaped by four schools of thought: The Quality & Reproducibility school, the Democracy & Transparency school, the Equity & Inclusion school, and the Efficiency & Incentives school. Each school has a different view on the key problems of the peer review system and the innovations necessary to address these problems. The schools partly complement each other, but we argue that there are also important tensions between them. We hope that the four schools of thought offer a useful framework to facilitate conversations about the future development of the peer review system.
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.