On the public citation graph

The Validity of Peer Review in a General Medicine Journal

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022475
0 signed · 83 inferred · view as graph

Inferred edges come from two machine sources: sweeps of open repository metadata (mostly SSRN and Zenodo), and a bulk OpenAlex citation snapshot. Every row below is labelled with the one it came from. Neither is a complete citation index — absence here is not evidence of absence.

Is this your work? Sign in with ORCID and put your name on the claims that are yours.
Claim with ORCID
Reference health. See whether every reference in this work resolves to a known work and none has been retracted — and get a dated CiteStamped badge you can embed.
See reference health

What this work says

Outgoing claims: the papers this work cites, builds on, or argues with.

inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1986.03380020117036openalex-snapshot
A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.229openalex-snapshot
Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.mr000016.pub3openalex-snapshot
Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02459266openalex-snapshot
Relations of relative scientometric impact indicators. The relative publication strategy index
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-013-0001-8openalex-snapshot
What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: Analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.05.002openalex-snapshot
Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/s0025-7753(03)74064-0openalex-snapshot
Efecto de la revisión estadística en la calidad de los manuscritos publicados en MEDICINA CLÍNICA: estudio aleatorizado
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(96)05016-7openalex-snapshot
Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2002.127326openalex-snapshot
The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: A content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015openalex-snapshot
Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01331.xopenalex-snapshot
Authors’ and Editors’ Perspectives on Peer Review Quality in Three Scholarly Nursing Journals
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010072openalex-snapshot
Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011344openalex-snapshot
The Usefulness of Peer Review for Selecting Manuscripts for Publication: A Utility Analysis Taking as an Example a High-Impact Journal
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-116-11-960_3openalex-snapshot
A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003openalex-snapshot
Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine

What points at this work

Incoming claims: where this work appears in other papers’ reference lists and arguments.

inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3656495openalex-extracted
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784openalex-snapshot
Bias in peer review
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1344openalex-snapshot
Is the quality of reviews reflected in editors' and authors' satisfaction with peer review? A cross‐sectional study in 12 journals across four research fields
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66147-2_9openalex-snapshot
Scholarly Publishing and Scientific Reproducibility
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-014-2963-9openalex-snapshot
Analysis of randomized controlled trials in Rheumatology International from 1981 to 2012: methodological assessment
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03894-2openalex-snapshot
Citations versus expert opinions: citation analysis of featured reviews of the American Mathematical Society
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3518-9openalex-snapshot
Rumors of the Demise of Peer Review are Premature
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4054-6openalex-snapshot
Capsule Commentary on Egloff et al., Publication Rates of Abstracts Presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4416-8openalex-snapshot
Peer Review of Abstracts Submitted to An Internal Medicine National Meeting: Is It a Predictor of Future Publication?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4676-3openalex-snapshot
Peer Review at JGIM
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06270-7openalex-snapshot
Peer Review at JGIM
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-023-08361-7openalex-snapshot
Making Meaning Matter: an Editor’s Perspective on Publishing Qualitative Research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025openalex-snapshot
Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.05.015openalex-snapshot
A guideline for reviewing a clinical research paper
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.riem.2015.09.001openalex-snapshot
Tres siglos después. . . ¿Es vigente el arbitraje por pares en las publicaciones científicas?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.05.001openalex-snapshot
Errors in science: the role of reviewers
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.81openalex-snapshot
Academic Journals, Incentives, and the Quality of Peer Review: A Model
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2016.48openalex-snapshot
Quality analysis of randomized controlled trials in the International Journal of Impotence Research: quality assessment and relevant clinical impact
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.804345openalex-snapshot
Reliability of Reviewer Ratings in the Manuscript Peer Review Process: An Opportunity for Improvement
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1274885openalex-snapshot
On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2020.1722599openalex-snapshot
Breaking Groupthink: Why Scientific Identity and Norms Mitigate Ideological Epistemology
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1089/ars.2011.4424openalex-snapshot
Rebound Peer Review: A Viable Recourse for Aggrieved Authors?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1089/ars.2013.5431openalex-snapshot
Testing the Rebound Peer Review Concept
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezu066openalex-snapshot
Agreement between thoracic reviewers for the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehs360openalex-snapshot
The European Heart Journal on the move: can scientific publishing be further improved?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1097/meg.0000000000001322openalex-snapshot
Industry funding effect on positive results of probiotic use in the management of acute diarrhea: a systematized review
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1108/jd-12-2022-0261openalex-snapshot
Terms in journal articles associating with high quality: can qualitative research be world-leading?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2963936openalex-snapshot
Evaluation Information Fusion of Scientific Research Project Based on Evidential Reasoning Approach Under Two-Dimensional Frames of Discernment
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1109/bcd61269.2024.10743083openalex-snapshot
Comparison of Best Paper Award selection between program committee members and attendees: Case of an international conference
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1109/mcs.2014.2320335openalex-snapshot
Papers Receive More Citations After Rejection [Publication Activities]
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12784openalex-snapshot
Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in Andrology Journals: A Quality Assessment
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12030openalex-snapshot
Validity and reliability of the scientific review process in nursing journals – time for a rethink?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12994openalex-snapshot
The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross‐sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003757openalex-snapshot
A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1155/2014/595320openalex-snapshot
Evaluation of an Internal Review Process for Grants And Manuscripts in the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00639openalex-snapshot
Is the Lack of Inter-referee Reliability a Threat to the Effectiveness of Peer Review in Science?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00125openalex-snapshot
Textual analysis of artificial intelligence manuscripts reveals features associated with peer review outcome
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00258openalex-snapshot
Predicting article quality scores with machine learning: The U.K. Research Excellence Framework
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2012.185.1_meetingabstracts.a2542openalex-snapshot
Evaluation Of An Internal Review Process For Grants And Manuscripts At The Canadian Critical Care Trials Group
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1177/00222437231188507openalex-snapshot
A Manuscript's Journey Through Peer Review: Insights from Almost 3,000 Editorial Decisions at the Journal of Marketing Research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1177/0363546511430627openalex-snapshot
3 Cheers for Our Peers!
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0395-3openalex-snapshot
The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285openalex-snapshot
Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048290openalex-snapshot
The Evolution of Academic Performance in Nine Subspecialties of Internal Medicine: An Analysis of Journal Citation Reports from 1998 to 2010
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106474openalex-snapshot
The Validation of Peer Review through Research Impact Measures and the Implications for Funding Strategies
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127362openalex-snapshot
Potential Conflicts of Interest of Editorial Board Members from Five Leading Spine Journals
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130450openalex-snapshot
Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179031openalex-snapshot
A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212360openalex-snapshot
Trustworthiness of randomized trials in endocrinology—A systematic survey
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275053openalex-snapshot
Use of supporting evidence by health and industry organisations in the consultation on e-cigarette regulations in New Zealand
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.14423/smj.0000000000001631openalex-snapshot
Undergraduate College Pathway Programs Designed to Attract and Matriculate Students from Underrepresented Groups into Medicine
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1590/s0066-782x2012000700014openalex-snapshot
Comentários sobre artigo de Araújo: os critérios para revisão e publicação de artigos são evidentes?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2020-2862openalex-snapshot
Uncertainty-Aware Machine Support for Paper Reviewing on the Interspeech 2019 Submission Corpus
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.2196/35698openalex-snapshot
Digital Scientific Platform for Independent Content in Neurology: Rigorous Quality Guideline Development and Implementation
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.22201/facmed.20075057e.2020.35.20235openalex-snapshot
La revisión por pares: análisis cualitativo de la experiencia de un grupo de revisores latinoamericanos
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2025.102.58956openalex-snapshot
Factores de rechazo en el arbitraje de artículos científicos de la revista Tecnociencia Chihuahua
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.22599/quantitativemethods.copenalex-snapshot
Citation-Based Indicators: Theoretical Considerations
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/734ajopenalex-snapshot
Breaking groupthink: Why scientific identity and norms mitigate ideological epistemology
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.47.2.180openalex-snapshot
What We Still Don't Know About Peer Review
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386openalex-snapshot
Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2014.55.271openalex-snapshot
Upgrading instructions for authors of scholarly journals
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2012.27.9.973openalex-snapshot
Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in the Journal of Korean Medical Science from 1986 to 2011
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2013.28.7.970openalex-snapshot
Peer Review in Scholarly Biomedical Journals: a Few Things that Make a Big Difference
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.4033/iee.2011.4.4.copenalex-snapshot
A beginner's guide to reviewing manuscripts in ecology and conservation
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2013.54.5.289openalex-snapshot
Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Urological Trials Conducted by Korean Medical Institutions
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.5222/jarss.2019.50479openalex-snapshot
Journals and Congresses in The Sharıng of Unıversal Scıence
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.2013.31.2.157openalex-snapshot
A Quality Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials about Erectile Dysfunction
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.7554/elife.59338openalex-snapshot
A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018
Editorial review for independent work. ICSAC — the Institute for Complexity Science and Advanced Computing — runs a structured editorial panel for researchers publishing outside journals, and publishes on CiteStamp rails. Submission is free and goes through ORCID: icsacinstitute.org/submit.