The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reviewing Peer Review
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bornmann, L. (2011) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112 · Cited by 567
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
Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., & Trinquart, L. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166387 · Cited by 277
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
Harley, D., Acord, S. K., Earl‐Novell, S., Lawrence, S., & King, C. J. (2010) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 213
Metadata
- 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.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2008-07-04
- Volume
- 321
- Issue
- 5885
- Pages
- 15-15
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- 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 › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › 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
