Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Is the future of peer review automated?

11 references·16 citing·55 second hopsampled

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews5,137 cited
2012Bias in peer review997 cited
2015The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013)510 cited
2017Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective303 cited
2019Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints196 cited
2018The changing forms and expectations of peer review179 cited
2017Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study170 cited
2019Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research153 cited
2021Assessment of transparency indicators across the biomedical literature: How open is open?139 cited
2018Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? – A systematic review of reviews: an update134 cited
2018The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications73 cited

Cited by

2024Meta‐analysis prediction intervals are under reported in sport and exercise medicine83 cited
2023Why research integrity matters and how it can be improved47 cited
2023

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

International multi‐stakeholder consensus statement on clinical trial integrity

29 cited

2023ChatGPT could be the reviewer of your next scientific paper. Evidence on the limits of AI-assisted academic reviews26 cited

2024Text classification models for assessing the completeness of randomized controlled trial publications based on CONSORT reporting guidelines18 cited

2023Enhancing scholarly discourse in the age of artificial intelligence: A guided approach to effective peer review process.17 cited

2024AI-assisted prescreening of biomedical research proposals: ethical considerations and the pilot case of “la Caixa” Foundation15 cited

2024Evaluating science: A comparison of human and AI reviewers13 cited

2023Reviewing Peer Review: A Flawed System: With Immense Potential11 cited

2022Motivating and Maintaining Ethics, Equity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Expertise in Peer Review10 cited

2023Reporting quality of abstracts and inconsistencies with full text articles in pediatric orthopedic publications9 cited

2025Linear regression reporting practices for health researchers, a cross-sectional meta-research study9 cited

2024A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections8 cited

2024Examining uncertainty in journal peer reviewers’ recommendations: a cross-sectional study7 cited

2025Postdigital Peer Review: A Vulnerable Space Between Freedom and Responsibility6 cited

2023Peer review in scientific publishing: Current practice, guidelines, relevancy, and way forward6 cited