ArticlePloS one2026
The effect of manuscript characteristics on quality assessment of scientific manuscripts in psychology.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We report a vignette study and a survey to investigate which study characteristics influence quality ratings psychology academics give of articles submitted for publication, and psychology academics and students to theses written by psychology students. In the vignette study, 800 respondents evaluated the quality of an abstract (7-point scale) of studies with small (N = 54) or large sample sizes (N = 540), showing statistically significant or non-significant results, and containing statistical reporting errors or no errors. In the subsequent survey, the same participants rated the importance of 29 manuscript characteristics related to a study's theory, design, conduct, data analyses, and presentation for assessing either the quality of a manuscript or its publishability (article) or grade (thesis). Results showed that quality ratings were affected by sample sizes but not by statistical significance or the presence of statistical reporting errors in the rated research vignette. Furthermore, in the survey academics and students provided highly similar ratings of the importance of different aspects relevant to quality assessment of articles and theses. These results suggest that quality criteria for scientific manuscripts are already adopted by students and are similar for submitted manuscripts and theses. Further research is needed to examine which study characteristics researchers consider most important when assessing a manuscript's quality in 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.