ArticleCureus2025
Peer Review of Scientific Studies: Problems and Potential Solutions.
Article in Cureus, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review has long stood as the principal safeguard for scientific credibility, yet much of its authority rests on tradition rather than empirical proof of efficacy. In recent years, persistent vulnerabilities, ranging from bias and inconsistency to opaque procedures and protracted delays, have eroded trust in the peer review system. Rising submission volumes, mounting commercial influences, and dwindling reviewer engagement have amplified the strain. Problems span structural and individual levels: an overburdened reviewer base, lack of standardized practices, unclear decision-making, slow turnaround times, and limited diversity in evaluation panels, together with personal pitfalls such as unconscious bias, conflicts of interest, poor accountability, inadequate training, and breaches of confidentiality, are present in the spectrum of issues. This editorial explores practical and ethical reforms to strengthen the process, including elevating reviewing to a recognized profession, introducing meaningful incentives, incorporating artificial intelligence judiciously, embracing transparent yet protective models, expanding reviewer diversity, and streamlining editorial workflows.
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.