ReviewBritish journal of biomedical science2024
The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.
Review in British journal of biomedical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 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
- [Scientific output of the Revista Médica del IMSS in PubMed (2005-2025): a bibliometric analysis].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Article
- Timing of health technology assessment in the United States: An evaluation of ICER reviews over 8 years.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Behavior characteristics of peer reviewers in medical journals: a survey from China.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- The paradox of peer review: protecting science or policing thought?Internal medicine journal · 2026Article
- Motivations and barriers to engaging in peer review: a qualitative study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Double anonymous peer review inJournal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2026Article
- Mapping the Ecological Landscape: A Systematized Review of Climate- and Nature-Related Content in Couple and Family Therapy Literature From 2009 to 2025.Family process · 2026Review
- Peer-review ownership in the AI era.EMBO reports · 2026Article
- The Challenge of the Peer Review Process.Acta medica Philippina · 2026Article
- Variability among large language models in assessing CONSORT compliance of published randomized clinical trials.PloS one · 2026Article
- 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
- When peer review drags on: the harm to early career researchers.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Open science and epistemic equity: opportunities and challenges in the contemporary research ecosystem.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Equity of digital self-management tools in adults with multiple long-term conditions: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Standardizing Methodologies in Prosthodontics to Improve Research Reliability and Peer Review Efficiency: A Perspective-Based Proposal.Health science reports · 2025Article
- A Guide to an Effective Peer Review.POCUS journal · 2025Article
- Towards an estimate of the impact of censorship on biomedical literature.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Silence is not an acceptable response to accusations of corruption: Expertise, integrity, and robust peer review processes safeguard ethical and data driven medical publications.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2025Article
- Peer review: Together we can make it work.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, underpinning essential quality control. First conceptualised in the 1700s, it is an iterative process that aims to elevate scientific literature to the highest standards whilst preventing publication of scientifically unsound, potentially misleading, and even plagiarised information. It is widely accepted that the peer review of scientific papers is an irreplaceable and fundamental aspect of the research process. However, the rapid growth of research and technology has led to a huge increase in the number of publications. This has led to increased pressure on the peer review system. There are several established peer review methodologies, ranging from single and double blind to open and transparent review, but their implementation across journals and research fields varies greatly. Some journals are testing entirely novel approaches (such as collaborative reviews), whilst others are piloting changes to established methods. Given the unprecedented growth in publication numbers, and the ensuing burden on journals, editors, and reviewers, it is imperative to improve the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. Herein we evaluate the peer review process, from its historical origins to current practice and future directions.
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.