ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2025
Remembering the Reviewers.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reviewer Activity: Self-esteem Rather Than Incentive.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
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
Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring the quality and credibility of academic research. As Article Processing Charges (APC) continue to rise, many journals provide only symbolic rewards to reviewers, such as certificates of appreciation and/or minimal discount vouchers, raising ethical concerns about fairness and the marginalization of scholarly labour. This commentary explores the disparity between the financial gains of journals and the no compensation for reviewers, who are crucial to maintaining research standards. It questions whether the current model appropriately recognizes the reviewer's contributions and advocates for actual compensation structures, including financial rewards, substantial reductions in APC, and professional recognition. Additionally, the article highlights the impact of these inequities on early-career researchers and scholars from less affluent regions, suggesting that equitable compensation could improve the sustainability and efficiency of the peer review process. By addressing these ethical concerns, scholarly publishing can better support the essential work of reviewers while fostering a more just and inclusive scholarly environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40971089What 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.