Linked from
The 96 pages that link to Scholarly peer review, each with the reason it gives.
Royal SocietyRelated: The Society’s publication practices contributed to the development of scientific review.
Scientific methodRelated: Expert scrutiny can identify weaknesses in methods and arguments before findings circulate widely.
Fact-checkingCompared with: Peer review assesses a work’s scholarly quality, while fact-checking targets the accuracy of claims.
PseudoscienceRelated: Independent scrutiny can identify unsupported methods and claims, though review alone does not guarantee truth.
IUPACRelated: Expert review helps test proposed terminology and standards before IUPAC publishes them.
Open accessRelated: Open availability does not by itself determine how research is reviewed.
Scientific skepticismRelated: Expert criticism can expose errors and unsupported claims before findings gain authority.
Research universityRelated: Peer review is a common mechanism for assessing research claims and proposals.
Academy of SciencesRelated: The Academy’s committees assess scientific submissions and candidates through expert judgment.
ManuscriptRelated: Journals often send submitted manuscripts to reviewers who assess their methods and claims.
National Academy of SciencesNarrower topic: Expert evaluation underpins both member elections and the evidence reviews behind reports.
UniversityRelated: Peer review helps universities assess and disseminate research.
International Union of Pure and Applied ChemistryRelated: Expert review helps test proposed IUPAC definitions, recommendations, and technical reports.
National Institutes of HealthRelated: Expert review helps NIH assess the scientific merit of grant applications.
Royal Swedish Academy of SciencesRelated: Expert assessment underpins both scientific communication and prize deliberations.
Scientific journalRelated: Many scientific journals use expert review to assess submissions before accepting them.
Scientific consensusRelated: Peer review scrutinizes individual findings that may contribute to a broader shared view.
Popular scienceRelated: Research behind popular accounts may have passed peer review, but that process does not guarantee correctness.
Research integrityRelated: Independent scrutiny can identify weaknesses, though it cannot guarantee integrity.
Science policyRelated: Peer review is a common way funders assess proposals, though it does not set public priorities.
Republic of LettersRelated: The Republic’s habits of seeking criticism and exchanging judgments prefigured later scholarly evaluation, without constituting modern peer review.
Scientific communicationRelated: It checks research claims and methods before many findings enter the formal literature.
Scientific priorityRelated: Review can assess a claim's substance, though it does not by itself determine who came first.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal SocietyRelated: The journal’s history is tied to the development of editorial scrutiny, though its early practices differed from modern peer review.
Research misconductRelated: Manipulating reviews or misusing confidential manuscripts raises integrity concerns distinct from falsifying research results.
Academic journalRelated: Many journals use expert assessment to judge manuscripts before accepting them.
Academic publishingRelated: Editors commonly use expert assessments to judge a manuscript’s rigor and suitability.
Book reviewCompared with: Peer review tests scholarly work for publication decisions rather than addressing a book’s public merits.
Editorial boardRelated: Journal boards often oversee peer review and use its assessments when deciding what to publish.
NatureRelated: Nature uses expert assessment to judge research manuscripts before publication.
Science journalismRelated: Journalists often use peer review to assess the status and scrutiny of reported findings.
Scientific misconductRelated: Review can identify problems, but it is not designed to reliably detect deliberate fraud.
AccreditationRelated: Accreditation reviews commonly rely on qualified peers assessing evidence and practice.
BibliometricsCompared with: It relies on expert judgments rather than publication counts and citation patterns.
Scholarly communicationRelated: It supplies a formal mechanism for judging manuscripts and advising editors.
Science (journal)Related: Peer review is one part of Science’s process for assessing research submissions.
Scientific publishingRelated: Reviewers assess submitted research and advise editors on its validity, significance, and clarity.
Basic researchRelated: It helps assess the methods and claims of basic studies.
Daubert standardRelated: Publication and peer review can indicate scrutiny, though neither guarantees soundness.
InterdisciplinarityRelated: Interdisciplinary submissions can challenge reviewers whose expertise covers only part of the work.
Piltdown ManRelated: Piltdown raised questions about how expert scrutiny can fail when evidence is scarce or prestige is high.
Predatory publishingRelated: Predatory journals may claim peer review while omitting it or conducting it inadequately.
American Mathematical SocietyRelated: Peer review underlies the Society's journals and some of its research-related decisions.
Collaborative writingRelated: Reviewers contribute revisions and criticism, though usually without coauthoring the final text.
CredibilityRelated: It is a quality-control process that can strengthen, but does not guarantee, credibility.
FallibilismRelated: Independent criticism helps expose errors that individual investigators miss.
Paper millRelated: Stronger review procedures can expose implausible methods, data, or manuscript patterns.
Social EpistemologyBroader topic: It distributes epistemic authority while filtering claims through professional scrutiny.
American Sociological AssociationRelated: Peer review underpins the research standards of the association’s journals.
National Bureau of Economic ResearchCompared with: NBER working papers circulate before journal peer review, so their status differs from vetted publications.