Reviewing Peer Review

Alberts, Bruce; Hanson, Brooks; Kelner, Katrina L.

doi:10.1126/science.1162115

Cited by 120Publishing and Scholarly CommunicationAcademic Publishing and Open AccessAcademic Writing and Publishing

Reviewing Peer Review

Alberts, Bruce, Hanson, Brooks, Kelner, Katrina L.·2008·Science

DOI 10.1126/science.1162115

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Peer review, in which experts in the field scrutinize and critique scientific results prior to publication, is fundamental to scientific progress, and the achievements of science in the last century are an endorsement of its value. Peer review influences more than just science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other similar advisory groups base their judgments on peer-reviewed literature, and this is part of their success. Many legal decisions and regulations also depend on peer-reviewed science. Thus, thorough, expert review of research results--without compensation--is an obligation that scientists shoulder for both science and the general public.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.1162115

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The same papers are reviewed multiple times due to high rejection rates.
“and the same papers being reviewed multiple times due to high rejection rates [1].”
From Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [1]

Still being checked.

Sorted by citations

Scientific peer review
Bornmann, L. (2011) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112 · Cited by 567 · see citing works
Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective
Huisman, J., & Smits, J. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5 · Cited by 303 · see citing works
The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise
Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., & Trinquart, L. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166387 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis
Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Cao, H., Wang, B., Ding, D., Yang, X., Vodrahalli, K., He, S., Smith, D., Yin, Y., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.01783 · Cited by 243 · see citing works
Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven DisciplinesPreprint
Harley, D., Acord, S. K., Earl‐Novell, S., Lawrence, S., & King, C. J. (2010) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 213 · see citing works
The risks associated with Artificial General Intelligence: A systematic review
McLean, S. G., Read, G. J. M., Thompson, J., Baber, C., Stanton, N. A., & Salmon, P. M. (2021) · Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1080/0952813x.2021.1964003 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study
Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., & Takács, K. (2012) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.014 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Nine Criteria for a Measure of Scientific Output
Kreiman, G., & Maunsell, J. H. R. (2011) · Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncom.2011.00048 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Explosion of formulaic research articles, including inappropriate study designs and false discoveries, based on the NHANES US national health database
Suchak, T., Aliu, A. E., Harrison, C., Zwiggelaar, R., Geifman, N., & Spick, M. (2025) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003152 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
De-centering 'spatial fix'--patterns of territorialization and regional technological dynamism of ICT hubs in China
Zhou, Y., Sun, Y., Wei, Y. D., & Lin, G. C. S. (2010) · Journal of Economic Geography · doi:10.1093/jeg/lbp065 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies
Guraya, S. Y., Norman, R. I., Khoshhal, K. I., Guraya, S. S., & Forgione, A. (2016) · Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences · doi:10.12669/pjms.326.10490 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Overburdening of peer reviewers: a multi-stakeholder perspective on causes and effects
Severin, A., & Chataway, J. (2021) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1002/leap.1392 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science
Horta, H., & Jung, J. (2024) · Higher Education Quarterly · doi:10.1111/hequ.12511 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure
Squazzoni, F., & Gandelli, C. (2012) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.12.005 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis
Casnici, N., Grimaldo, F., Gilbert, N., & Squazzoni, F. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23665 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
LINKING BIG: THE CONTINUING PROMISE OF EVOLUTIONARY SYNTHESIS
Sidlauskas, B. L., Ganapathy, G., Hazkani‐Covo, E., Jenkins, K. P., Lapp, H., McCall, L. W., Price, S. A., Scherle, R., Spaeth, P. A., & Kidd, D. M. (2009) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00892.x · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Industrial methodology for process verification in research (IMPROVER): toward systems biology verification
Meyer, P., Hoeng, J., Rice, J. J., Norel, R., Sprengel, J., Stolle, K., Bonk, T., Corthesy, S., Royyuru, A. K., Peitsch, M. C., et al. (2012) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bts116 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study
Walker, R. D., Barros, B., Conejo, R., Neumann, K., & Telefont, M. (2015) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.6012.2 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?
Bornmann, L., Weymuth, C., & Daniel, H. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0011-4 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
The next generation of action ecology : novel approaches towards global ecological research
White, R. L., Sutton, A. E., Salguero‐Gómez, R., Bray, T. C., Campbell, H., Cieraad, E., Geekiyanage, N., Gherardi, L., Hughes, A. C., Jørgensen, P. S., et al. (2015) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es14-00485.1 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes
Gallo, S. A., Carpenter, A. S., & Glisson, S. R. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071693 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and FuturePreprint
Harley, D., & Acord, S. K. (2011) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data
Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., & Trinquart, L. (2015) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1800-6 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Re-examining lexical and semantic attention: Dual-view graph convolutions enhanced BERT for academic paper rating
Xue, Z., He, G., Liu, J., Jiang, Z., Zhao, S. X., & Lu, W. (2022) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103216 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Is preprint the future of science? A thirty year journey of online preprint servicesPreprint
Xie, B., Shen, Z., & Wang, K. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.09066 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Social Simulation That 'Peers into Peer Review'
Squazzoni, F., & Takács, K. (2011) · Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation · doi:10.18564/jasss.1821 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
The miracle of peer review and development in science: an agent-based model
Righi, S., & Takács, K. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2244-y · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Improving the Peer Review Process: A Proposed Market System
Frijters, P., & Torgler, B. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03076-1 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Trade-off between urgency and reduced editorial capacity affect publication speed in ecological and medical journals during 2020
Forti, L., Solino, L. A., & Szabo, J. (2021) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-021-00920-9 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
A Three-Decade History of the Duration of Peer Review
Lyman, R. L. (2013) · Journal of Scholarly Publishing · doi:10.3138/jsp.44.3.001 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Editorial behaviors in peer review
Wang, W. W., Kong, X., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Xia, F., & Wang, X. (2016) · SpringerPlus · doi:10.1186/s40064-016-2601-y · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review
Bianchi, F., & Squazzoni, F. (2022) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scac027 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Juniors Seek an End to the Impact Factor Race
Brischoux, F., & Cook, T. R. (2009) · BioScience · doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.8.2 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
A framework for assessing the peer review duration of journals: case study in computer science
Bilalli, B., Munir, R. F., & Abelló, A. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03742-9 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Public and expert collaborative evaluation model and algorithm for enterprise knowledge
Le, C., Xin-jian, G., Pan, K., Dai, F., & Guo-ning, Q. (2012) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517575.2011.644583 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Is three better than one? simulating the effect of reviewer selection and behavior on the quality and efficiency of peer review
Bianchi, F., & Squazzoni, F. (2015) · Winter Simulation Conference · doi:10.1109/wsc.2015.7408561 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Bias in peer review: a case study
Walker, R. D., Barros, B., Conejo, R., Neumann, K., & Telefont, M. (2015) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.6012.1 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Barriers Restricting the Free Dissemination of Scientific Achievements: Own Experiences in Crossing Walls and Bridges
Barczyński, B. J., Graczyński, M. R., & Kalina, R. M. (2009) · Journal of Human Kinetics · doi:10.2478/v10078-009-0017-2 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly
Fang, H. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0323-4 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Assessing Individual Intellectual Output in Scientific Research: Mexico’s National System for Evaluating Scholars Performance in the Humanities and the Behavioral Sciences
Frixione, E., Ruiz, L., & Hernández, G. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155732 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Preserving the Quality of Scientific Research: Peer Review of Research Articles
Silva, P. U. K. D., & Vance, C. K. (2017) · Fascinating life sciences · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50627-2_6 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Ending elitism in peer-review publication
Aarssen, L. W., & Lortie, C. J. (2009) · Ideas in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.4033/iee.2009.2.4.e · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Archives, Access and Artificial Intelligence
(2022) · Bielefeld University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783839455845 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
The academic status of reviewers predicts their language use
Sun, Z., Cao, C. C., Ma, C., & Li, Y. (2023) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2023.101449 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Understanding delays in publishing interdisciplinary research
Zhang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2024) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103826 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Reading Peer Review
Eve, M. P., Neylon, C., O’Donnell, D. P., Moore, S., Gadie, R., Odeniyi, V., & Parvin, S. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108783521 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study
Mrowinski, M. J., Fronczak, A., Fronczak, P., Nedić, O., & Dekanski, A. B. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03619-x · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Peering Into Peer Review
Squazzoni, F. (2010) · Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) · doi:10.2383/33640 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
The AI Review Lottery: Widespread AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Boost Paper Scores and Acceptance Rates
Russo, G., Horta Ribeiro, M., Davidson, T. R., Veselovsky, V., & West, R. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757667 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
A large-scale randomized study of large language model feedback in peer review
Thakkar, N., Yuksekgonul, M., Silberg, J., Garg, A., Peng, N., Sha, F., Yu, R., Vondrick, C., & Zou, J. (2026) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-026-01188-x · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Archives, Access and Artificial Intelligence
Eve, M. P., Gadie, R., Odeniyi, V., & Parvin, S. (2022) · Digital humanities research · doi:10.14361/9783839455845 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Informing the Plastic Treaty negotiations on science - experiences from the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastic Treaty
Syberg, K., Almroth, B. C., Fernandez, M. O., Baztan, J., Bergmann, M., Thompson, R. C., Gündoğdu, S., Knoblauch, D., Gomiero, A., Monclús, L., et al. (2024) · Microplastics and Nanoplastics · doi:10.1186/s43591-024-00091-9 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Peer Grading the Peer Reviews: A Dual-Role Approach for Lightening the Scholarly Paper Review Process
Arous, I., Yang, J., Khayati, M., & Cudré-Mauroux, P. (2021) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3442381.3450088 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Journals Operating Predatory Practices Are Systematically Eroding the Science Ethos: A Gate and Code Strategy to Minimise Their Operating Space and Restore Research Best Practice
Timmis, K. N., Williams, P. M., Karahan, Z. C., López‐García, P., Rainey, P. B., Chavarría, M., Greening, C., Steward, K. F., Hallsworth, J. E., Pereira, C. S., et al. (2025) · Microbial Biotechnology · doi:10.1111/1751-7915.70180 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Enhancing Peer Review with AI-Powered Suggestion Generation Assistance: Investigating the Design Dynamics
Neshaei, S. P., Rietsche, R., Su, X., & Wambsganss, T. (2024) · Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3640543.3645169 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
A More Comprehensive Index in the Evaluation of Scientific Research: The Single Researcher Impact Factor Proposal
Castelnuovo, G., Limonta, D., Sarmiento, L., & Molinari, E. (2010) · Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health · doi:10.2174/1745017901006010109 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Developmental Direction for Review System of the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing
Kim, H. W., Chung, M.-S., Park, J., Suh, Y. O., Suk, M. H., Shin, H., Yang, J. H., Jang, H. J., & Jung, M. S. (2007) · Daehan ganho haghoeji · doi:10.4040/jkan.2007.37.3.422 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Screening, sorting, and the feedback cycles that imperil peer review
Bergstrom, C. T., & Gross, K. (2026) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003650 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Understanding the sustainability of supply–demand in peer review system: an analysis based on scholars’ research and review activities
Yu, H., Liang, Y., & Xie, Y. (2025) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-025-05264-8 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Reflections on the impact of artificial intelligence on peer-review practices and its implications for greener scientific evaluation
Fuente-Ballesteros, A., & Zuin, V. G. (2026) · Green Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.greeac.2026.100349 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025
Thakkar, N., Yuksekgonul, M., Silberg, J., Garg, A., Peng, N., Sha, F., Yu, R., Vondrick, C., & Zou, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.09737 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review
Matt, C., Hoerndlein, C., & Heß, T. (2017) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
The unforeseen impact of meeting abstracts on cancer research
Krauskopf, E. (2011) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr406 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society Annual Meeting From 2008 to 2017
Yuan, P. H., MacLean, L. J., Li, E. A., Yin, S., & Micieli, J. A. (2021) · Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology · doi:10.1097/wno.0000000000001158 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Peer-review in the Internet agePreprint
Sobkowicz, P. (2008) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0810.0486 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Scientific conduct and misconduct: honesty is still the best policy
Dahanukar, N., & Molur, S. (2012) · Journal of Threatened Taxa · doi:10.11609/jott.04092012.2845-8 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Editorial time management: Peer review dates and other key dates of Spanish Communication journals
Segarra‐Saavedra, J., Hidalgo‐Marí, T., & Tur‐Viñes, V. (2023) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1002/leap.1569 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Investigating the effect of publication text similarity between reviewers and authors on the rigor of peer review: An intellectual proximity perspective
Kang, Y., Zhang, C., Sun, Z., & Li, Y. (2025) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2025.101709 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Wanted: a ‘Reviewer Effectiveness Index‘
Baveye, P. C. (2012) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1087/20120311 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Quality Control through Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication: Review of Related Literature
Gupta, V. K. (2017) · IRA-International Journal of Management & Social Sciences · doi:10.21013/jmss.v8.n3.p3 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Critique is not a verb”: is peer review stifling the dialogue in disaster scholarship?
Chmutina, K., Cheek, W., & von Meding, J. K. (2022) · Disaster Prevention and Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/dpm-09-2021-0266 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE
Acuna, D. E., Teplitskiy, M., Evans, J. A., & Kording, K. P. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0273994 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Universalism and particularism in the recommendations of the nobel prize for science
Ko, B.-K., Jang, Y., & Yang, J. (2024) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04921-0 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly. Part II
Liu, X. Z., & Fang, H. (2011) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0526-3 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Peer Review in Ophthalmology: A Collaborative Approach to Training the Next Generation of Reviewers
Chan, M. F. (2024) · Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.65.10.1 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Who gets the grant? A persona-based investigation into research funding panelist preferences
Santos, J. M. (2024) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvae030 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Quis judicabit ipsos judices? A case study on the dynamics of competitive funding panel evaluations
Santos, J. M. (2022) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvac021 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Time for Thymol – Let’s Flush out the Chronic Parasites in Peer-Review
Simha, A. (2024) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/10596011241280326 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Clinical Research Authorships: Ethics and Problem-Solving
Katib, A. A. (2020) · Canadian Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.7202/1073787ar · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Wissenschaftliche Originalarbeiten in deutscher Sprache – Ein Anachronismus
Braus, D. F., & Baethge, C. (2009) · Psychiatrische Praxis · doi:10.1055/s-0028-1090152 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Clinical Utility of the Adapted Biopsychosocial Model: An Initial Validation Through Peer Review
Gentry, K., Snyder, K., & Utley, J. J. (2021) · The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.15453/2168-6408.1750 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
How to get published in Palynology (or any other journal)
Riding, J. B. (2021) · Palynology · doi:10.1080/01916122.2021.1965666 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Peer review under the microscope. An agent-based model of scientific collaboration
Squazzoni, F., & Gandelli, C. (2012) · Winter Simulation Conference · doi:10.1109/wsc.2012.6465283 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
OPENING PANDORA’S BOX: A CRITIQUE OF PEER REVIEW PROCESSES
Grosu-Rădulescu, L.-M. (2022) · SYNERGY · doi:10.24818/syn/2022/18/1.11 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Scientific Correspondence
Groves, C. P., & Bahir, M. M. (2014) · Marine Mammal Science · doi:10.1111/mms.12147 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Editorial
Pautasso, M., & Jeger, M. J. (2015) · European Journal of Plant Pathology · doi:10.1007/s10658-015-0731-7 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
The Miracle of Peer Review and Development in Science: An Agent-Based ModelPreprint
Righi, S., & Takkcs, K. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2807289 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
A formal study of co-opetition in scholarly publishingPreprint
García, J. A., Sánchez, R. M. R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3824655 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Nurturing ideas, cultivating reviewers: The C.E.D.A.R. tree of generative peer review
Cristofaro, M., & Duplat, V. (2025) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2025.10.011 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Who can Submit an Excellent Review for this Manuscript in the Next 30 Days? - Peer Reviewing in the Age of Overload
Alhoori, H., Fox, E. A., Frommholz, I., Liu, H., Coupette, C., Rieck, B., Ghosal, T., & Wu, J. F. (2023) · ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries · doi:10.1109/jcdl57899.2023.00077 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Modeling submission decision behavior: the effect of relevance and value
Xu, X., Xie, J., Lyu, D., Zhang, Z., Jiang, L., & Cheng, Y. (2026) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-026-05547-8 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Is the problem developmental review, or the development of peer review?
Obenauer, W. G., & Griep, Y. (2026) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1017/iop.2025.10050 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Opening The Black-Box Of Referee Behaviour. An Agent-Based Model Of Peer Review
Squazzoni, F., & Gandelli, C. (2012) · European Conference on Modelling and Simulation (ECMS) · doi:10.7148/2012-0647-0653 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
A Discussion on Governmental Research Grants
Fang, H. (2014) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9582-4 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
A More Comprehensive Index in the Evaluation of Scientific Research: The Single Researcher Impact Factor Proposal
Castelnuovo, G., Limonta, D., Sarmiento, L., & Molinari, E. (2010) · Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health · doi:10.2174/17450179010060100109 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
The scientific importance of asking questions at meetings: Why virtual debate is not enough
O’Malley, M. A., & Leonelli, S. (2010) · BioEssays · doi:10.1002/bies.201000112 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Subscriptions
Genter, M. B., Brock, W. J., & Mattes, W. B. (2015) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfu284 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
On urgency and importance
Medina, L. R. (2020) · Tapuya Latin American Science Technology and Society · doi:10.1080/25729861.2020.1697575 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
All Hands on Deck: Nicotine and Tobacco Research Needs Reviewers More Than Ever
Hawk, L. W. (2023) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntad091 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Revisiting Peer Review: Is it Time for you to be a Peer Reviewer?
Generali, J. A. (2012) · Hospital Pharmacy · doi:10.1310/hpj4705-326

Authors: Alberts, B., Hanson, B., & Kelner, K. L.
Affiliations: Bruce Alberts is the Editor-in-Chief of Science.
Brooks Hanson is Deputy Editor for physical sciences at Science.
Katrina L. Kelner is Deputy Editor for life sciences at Science.
ORCID: Alberts, Bruce
Hanson, Brooks
Venue: Science
Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Published: 2008-07-04
Volume: 321
Issue: 5885
Pages: 15-15
ISSN: 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
1095-9203
DOI: 10.1126/science.1162115
OpenAlex: W1968836033
Cited by: 119
References: 0
Citations by year: 2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 9
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: closed
Locations: Science (publishedVersion)
PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics: 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
Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords: peer review, scholarly publishing, scientific integrity, science policy, IPCC, science and law, role of scientists
MeSH terms: Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Peer Review, 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

Reviewing Peer Review

Abstract

Integrity signals

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Cites

Cited by

Related

Record

About these checks