ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Physical Therapist Treatment in Addition to Usual Podiatry Management of Plantar Heel Pain: Economic Evaluation of a Randomized Clinical Trial.Physical therapy · 2025Trial
- Applicants as reviewers: a mixed methods evaluation of the risks, benefits, and potential of distributed peer review for grant funding allocations.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Fostering cultural change in research through innovative knowledge sharing, evaluation, and community engagement strategies.NPJ science of learning · 2026Review
- The Peer Reviewer Crisis: Sustaining Scholarly Community or Reimagining the Future of Peer Review?Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- Improving Scientific Research: Renegotiated Principles of Science, Proposals, Failures, and Successes.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of the researcher-led "Peerspectives" peer review training course on review quality, knowledge, and skills among doctoral students in the biomedical sciences: a pre-post study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Most science is published from countries lacking in democracy and freedom of press.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- When peer review drags on: the harm to early career researchers.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Amplifying signal-to-noise: Responsible use of large language models in radiology publishing.Clinical imaging · 2026Article
- Gender and disciplinary differences in grant proposal peer review: Content and sentiment in 39,280 reports.PloS one · 2026Article
- On the determinants of journal rejection rates: evidence from the Journal of Financial Economics.Financial innovation · 2026Article
- Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A narrative review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- The Multifaceted Pathophysiology of Major Depressive Disorder: Integrating Neurobiology, Genetics, and Systems-level Perspectives.Current neurovascular research · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Reviewer Fatigue in Peer Review: A Need for New Strategies to Overcome.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2025Article
- The Peer Review Crisis Demands Radical Reform: Why Reviewers Should Become Paid Professional Referees.Cureus · 2025Article
- Peer review: Together we can make it work.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2025Article
- On improving the sustainability of peer review.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- A Practical Guide for Group Peer Reviews to Train a New Generation of Reviewers and Scholars.Hospital pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
What is wrong with the peer review system? Is peer review sustainable? Useful? What other models exist? These are central yet contentious questions in today's academic discourse. This perspective critically discusses alternative models and revisions to the peer review system. The authors highlight possible changes to the peer review system, with the goal of fostering further dialog among the main stakeholders, including producers and consumers of scientific research. Neither our list of identified issues with the peer review system nor our discussed resolutions are complete. A point of agreement is that fair assessment and efficient change would require more comprehensive and rigorous data on the various aspects of the peer review system.
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.