Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study | Synapse

⌘+K

Keep reading

Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context:

1Peer ReviewReview · 1994 · 155 citations
2Editorial Peer Review in Biomedical PublicationReview · 1990 · 92 citations
3Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journalsCross-Sectional Study · 2012 · 143 citations
4Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary OutcomesRCT · 2010 · 856 citations
5Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after studyRCT · 2014 · 103 citations
6Who's Afraid of Peer Review?Review · 2013 · 940 citations
7What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?Review · 2008 · 240 citations
8Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts?Review · 2009 · 60 citations
9M1 neuroplasticity as a neurophysiological index of depressive symptom severity and treatment associated neural changes: a two-phase cross-sectional and randomized controlled trialBMC Medicine · 2026
10GIPR and GLP-1R agonism as potential behavioral catalysts: a drug-target Mendelian randomization studyBMC Medicine · 2026

More from BMC Medicine

More from University of Oxford