No, Scientific Reports publishes original research (including meta-analyses) and does not accept review articles.

Usually yes—review articles are often peer-reviewed, but the label alone doesn’t guarantee a journal-run referee process.

No, claims labeled as pseudoscience rarely pass real peer review and often bypass or misuse the process.

No, PubMed mixes peer-reviewed studies with some non-reviewed records; check each PubMed entry to confirm review status.

No, in scholarly publishing peer review is a vetting step—many scholarly articles use it, but not every scholarly source is peer-reviewed.

No, peer-reviewed sources aren’t automatically primary sources; it depends on whether they report original data or synthesize prior work.

Yes, use a hyphen in “peer-reviewed” before a noun; write “peer review” as a noun or after a verb.

Yes, peer review in medical publishing improves reporting and catches issues, but it can’t fix weak methods or guarantee complete accuracy.

No, most oral-history projects don’t need IRB review unless designed to produce generalizable research under the Common Rule.

No, open access does not automatically mean peer-reviewed; it covers free reading access, while review depends on the venue.