CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 85Academic Writing and PublishingPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationAcademic Publishing and Open Access

The good, the bad and the rude peer-review

Mavrogenis, Andreas F., Quaile, Andrew, Scarlat, Marius M.·2020·International Orthopaedics
DOI 10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Toxic reviews can severely impact authors, causing feelings of discouragement, anger, or even depression.

    “Such reviews, characterized by harsh and unconstructive criticism, rude comments, and unprofessionalism, can severely impact authors, causing feelings of discouragement, anger, or even depression (Baron 1988;Mavrogenis, Quaile, and Scarlat 2020).”

    From Benchmark on Peer Review Toxic Detection: A Challenging Task with a New Dataset (2025) · cites this paper as Mavrogenis, Quaile, and Scarlat 2020

    In “The rude peer-review” (p. 2), the paper says rude reviews can be discouraging, make authors “give up in despair,” and cause psychological distress and self-doubt. This supports a serious emotional impact, but the paper does not specifically report anger or depression. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. [1]1. Mavrogenis AF, Sun J, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2019) How to evaluate reviewers -the international orthopedics reviewers score (INOR-RS). Int Orthop 43(8):1773 -1777
  2. [2]2. Quaile A, Scarlat MM, Mavrogenis AF, Mauffrey C (2019) International Orthopaedics -instructions for authors, English expression, style and rules. Int Orthop 43(11):2425 -2427
  3. [3]3. Peters DP, Ceci SJ (1980) A manuscript masquerade. How well does the review process work? N Y Acad Sci. https://doi.org/10. 1002/j.2326-1951.1980.tb01346.x
  4. [4]4. Link AM (1998) US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 280(3):246 -247
  5. [5]5. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N (2006) Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 295(3):314 -317
  6. [6]6. Smith R (2006) Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 99:178 -182
  7. [9]9. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR (2013) Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature 504(7479):211 -213
  8. [11]11. journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models. BMJ Open 5(9):e008707
  9. [11]11. Wren JD, Valencia A, Kelso J (2019) Reviewer-coerced citation: case report, update on journal policy and suggestions for future prevention. Bioinformatics. 35(18):3217 -3218
  10. [12]12. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R (1999) Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers ' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ. 318(7175):23 -27
  11. [13]13. Messias AMV, Lira RPC, Furtado JMF, Paula JS, Rocha EM (2017) How to evaluate and acknowledge a scientific journal peer reviewer: a proposed index to measure the performance of reviewers. Arq Bras Oftalmol 80(6) V
  12. [14]14. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B (2013) Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64(1):2 -17
  13. [16]16. Zazgyva A, Kon E, Mauffrey C, Mavrogenis AF, Scarlat MM (2017) Reviews, reviewers and reviewing. Int Orthop 41(1):1 -2
  14. [19]19. Wilcox C Rude paper reviews are pervasive and sometimes harmful. Available at: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rudepaper-reviews-are-pervasive-and-sometimes-harmful-study-finds. Accessed 6 Jan 2020. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba5502 · DOI
  15. [29]29. Romero-Olivares AL Reviewers, don ' t be rude to nonnative English speakers. Available at: https://www.sciencemag.org/ careers/2019/10/reviewers-don-t-be-rude-nonnative-englishspeakers. Accessed 6 January 2020

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mavrogenis, A. F., Quaile, A., & Scarlat, M. M.
Affiliations
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Scarlat, Marius M.
ORCID
Venue
International Orthopaedics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-02-11
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
413-415
ISSN
  • 0341-2695 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-5195
DOI
10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1
OpenAlex
W3006014645
Cited by
85
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • International Orthopaedics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
peer review, editorial process, scholarly publishing, orthopaedic research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review