ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2025
Risk of Editorial Bias: A Case Study of Factors Contributing to Review Time in a Leading Journal in Dentistry.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of editorial bias in the field of Dentistry by examining surrogate measures which can be readily extracted from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a journal of high impact factor. MATERIAL AND
methodsRCTs published between January 2019 and March 2023 were manually downloaded. Data related to author affiliation, dates of submission and first publication, study location, review time, compliance with Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, ethics approval number, clinical trial registration time, reported outcomes, and eligibility criteria in registries and sample size calculation were extracted.
resultsA total of 40 RCTs were included in this cross-sectional study. The mean review time was 165.38 ± 91.40 days with 55% of RCTs exceeding 120-day review time. A total of 23 RCTs (57.5%) were compliant with the CONSORT statement. The review time of RCTs with editorial co-authorship was significantly shorter than the review time of RCTs that had no authors from the editorial team (91.75 ± 42.03 vs. 239.00 ± 63.00 days; p < 0.001).
conclusionsRCTs with editorial co-authorship in the field of Dentistry were statistically favored in the initial screening or peer-review process having significantly short review time. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Scientific journals should adopt a double-blind peer-review process that is thorough, fair, and transparent to improve the quality of published research. To address any concerns related to editorial co-authorship, editors should explicitly explain the peer-review process in a commentary added to the published 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.