ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2026
Beyond predatory journals: peer review transparency as a preventive strategy for editorial integrity in scholarly communication.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the emergence of predatory journals, the integrity of scientific communications has faced serious challenges, particularly when this integrity is assessed solely through external indicators which, while providing an initial safeguard, do not ensure in practice whether there was a rigorous, independent peer review, or whether traceable evidence exists regarding the decision leading to acceptance. This study focuses on complementing existing detection systems with transparency in the peer-review process as a preventive strategy against the current opacity of this process in most scientific journals. Furthermore, this structural vulnerability is not limited to clearly deceptive journals but may also be reflected in legitimate journals due to weaknesses in governance, poor oversight, or manipulation by unethical actors, without necessarily implying an explicit intent to engage in misconduct. This transparency alone does not solve the problem of predatory journals, but by intervening at the most critical and vulnerable point, it could be considered a strategy that-through explicit peer review policies (
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.