ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026
Using AI to improve peer review and research integrity in scientific journals.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Peer Reviewer Crisis: Sustaining Scholarly Community or Reimagining the Future of Peer Review?Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- AI-assisted peer review: enhancing evaluation while increasing author workload.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Forty years of changes in scientific publishing: from conflict of interest to generative AI.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Will AI-written and AI-reviewed preprints from aiXiv be bibliometrically accepted?Health affairs scholar · 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 inefficient, biased, and often ineffective. However, its importance in maintaining research integrity, at a time when the public has less faith in science, is clear, since journals are the principal conduit for communicating the results of research to the scientific community and the public. Given that the number of published manuscripts in the biomedical sciences now exceeds 3 million per year it is no longer possible for human editorial and peer review alone to ensure integrity. New approaches are needed, including the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to assist in editorial and peer review.
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.