ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
From novice to expert: the impact of peer review interaction on authors' academic growth.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
As a core link in academic quality control, peer review has been proven to improve the quality of papers in paper publishing, but this is often limited to the micro level of individual papers, the macro-level impact of peer review on authors' academic development is not yet clear. This study adopts a longitudinal case study to analyze the publication process of two international journal papers with a 14 year interval by the same author. Combining review comments, author responses, and interview reflections, the study systematically examines the development trajectory of three dimensions: paper quality, social skills and academic participation. Research has found that peer review interaction drives deep transformation through a triple mechanism: the internalization of paper standards sparks a shift from mechanical imitation to intentional construction, the practice of responding to comments promotes a shift from unidirectional acceptance to negotiated revision, and the change in academic participation undergoes a shift from external regulation to intrinsic motivation. The research results provide an empirical basis for academic writing teaching and a dynamic analysis for the study of occluded genres.
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.