ArticleBMC research notes2022
Is the future of peer review automated?
Article in BMC research notes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Building a synthesis-ready research ecosystem: fostering collaboration and open science to accelerate biomedical translation.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- Current capabilities of large language models as peer reviewers for manuscripts submitted to ophthalmology-related journals.Medicine · 2026Article
- Reporting quality of quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methods in scientific publications.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Use as directed? A comparison of software tools intended to check rigor and transparency of published work.PloS one · 2026Article
- A survey of how biology researchers assess credibility when serving on grant and hiring committees.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Sports Metaresearch: An Emerging Discipline of Sport Science and Medicine.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Guidance for sharing computational models of neural stimulation: from project planning to publication.Journal of neural engineering · 2025Review
- SPIRIT-CONSORT-TM: a corpus for assessing transparency of clinical trial protocol and results publications.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Improving research transparency with individualized report cards: A feasibility study in clinical trials at a large university medical center.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- SPIRIT-CONSORT-TM: a corpus for assessing transparency of clinical trial protocol and results publications.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Common misconceptions held by health researchers when interpreting linear regression assumptions, a cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Linear regression reporting practices for health researchers, a cross-sectional meta-research study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Text classification models for assessing the completeness of randomized controlled trial publications based on CONSORT reporting guidelines.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Examining uncertainty in journal peer reviewers' recommendations: a cross-sectional study.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Limiting open science? Three approaches to bottom-up governance of dual-use research of concern.Pathogens and global health · 2024Review
- Automatic categorization of self-acknowledged limitations in randomized controlled trial publications.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- CONSORT-TM: Text classification models for assessing the completeness of randomized controlled trial publications.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Enhancing scholarly discourse in the age of artificial intelligence: A guided approach to effective peer review process.La Tunisie medicale · 2023Review
- Open Science 2.0: Towards a truly collaborative research ecosystem.PLoS biology · 2023Article
- Journal impact factors and the future of open access publishing.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rising rate of preprints and publications, combined with persistent inadequate reporting practices and problems with study design and execution, have strained the traditional peer review system. Automated screening tools could potentially enhance peer review by helping authors, journal editors, and reviewers to identify beneficial practices and common problems in preprints or submitted manuscripts. Tools can screen many papers quickly, and may be particularly helpful in assessing compliance with journal policies and with straightforward items in reporting guidelines. However, existing tools cannot understand or interpret the paper in the context of the scientific literature. Tools cannot yet determine whether the methods used are suitable to answer the research question, or whether the data support the authors' conclusions. Editors and peer reviewers are essential for assessing journal fit and the overall quality of a paper, including the experimental design, the soundness of the study's conclusions, potential impact and innovation. Automated screening tools cannot replace peer review, but may aid authors, reviewers, and editors in improving scientific papers. Strategies for responsible use of automated tools in peer review may include setting performance criteria for tools, transparently reporting tool performance and use, and training users to interpret reports.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.