Large-Scale Sting | Research Integrity
Who's Afraid of Peer Review?
A broad submission experiment revealed that many journals accepted a deeply flawed manuscript, demonstrating major variance in peer-review rigor.
Protocol
The same intentionally defective manuscript was adapted and submitted to a large set of journals.
Acceptance and rejection outcomes were compared to infer review robustness.
Impact
The piece became a reference point in debates on predatory publishing and quality assurance in OA ecosystems.
It also influenced policy discussions around editorial transparency and indexing standards.
Context
A broad submission experiment revealed that many journals accepted a deeply flawed manuscript, demonstrating major variance in peer-review rigor.
Who's Afraid of Peer Review? is published here in a full-article route so readers can inspect framing, metadata, and references together.
Editorial interpretation
Within the Research Integrity section, this piece is used to analyze how evidence claims and publication context influence reader trust.
Route-level discoverability is intentionally preserved so each claim can be traced back to its source record.
Limitations and replication note
This journal shell is a structured publication demonstrator, not a substitute for external primary archives.
For formal citation use, verify details against source publications and archival records.