Our methodology
Dose-Response is a weekly critical appraisal of published research for clinicians. Our value is not that we summarise papers, it is that we judge them, evenly and out loud. This page sets out exactly how we choose what to appraise, the standards every appraisal must meet, why we call out what a paper is and is not, and how to challenge us when you think we have it wrong.
How we choose papers
Each week we harvest new research two ways: from a curated list of the leading sports-medicine, physiotherapy and strength-and-conditioning journals, and from a broad topic net across the public research databases (PubMed and Europe PMC) so a strong paper in a general journal is not missed. We then rank the candidates and appraise the strongest, and a human reviews every appraisal before it is published.
Journal quality is one input, weighed openly
Where a paper is published is a signal, not a verdict. We grade each journal's quality from open, independent data and let it nudge our shortlist, so a stronger venue edges ahead of a weaker one when everything else is equal. You will see this on each appraisal as a small badge next to the verdict:
Q1 · SJR 1.1 · cited 1.4×
- Q1 means the journal sits in the top quartile of its subject field by SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), an independent, openly published ranking built on Scopus citation data. Q1 is the top 25 percent, down to Q4.
- SJR is that ranking's score for the journal (higher is more influential in its field).
- cited 1.4× is the journal's average number of citations per article over the previous two years. We recreate this ourselves from open citation data (via OpenAlex) as a transparent, license-clean stand-in for a journal's citation impact.
We deliberately do not use Clarivate's Journal Impact Factor. We neither republish their numbers nor use the "Journal Impact Factor" or "JIF" name, which are Clarivate's. The idea of a two-year citation average is not owned by anyone, so we compute our own equivalent from open data and label it plainly as our own.
Journal quartile and SJR are sourced from SCImago Journal Rank (scimagojr.com), derived from Scopus (Elsevier) data, and used with attribution. The two-year citation impact is recreated from OpenAlex open citation data and is our own figure, not Clarivate's Journal Impact Factor.
Journal quality never sets the verdict. It only helps decide which papers we spend time appraising, and breaks ties between otherwise-equal picks. A landmark trial in a modest journal still leads; a weak study in a famous one is still called weak. And because strength-and-conditioning journals often carry lower scores than large clinical journals, we hold a guaranteed place each week for performance research, so the ranking never crowds it out.
The standards every appraisal meets
Every appraisal, whether written for the weekly issue or produced on demand, must satisfy the same non-negotiable rules. We check them against live output.
- Application is mandatory, concrete and dual-lens. Every appraisal says who it applies to and what actually changes in practice, across both the physiotherapy clinic and the strength-and-conditioning floor, or states plainly that nothing should change yet.
- No naked thresholds. When an appraisal leans on a measurable finding (a percentage, score, imaging finding or cut-off), we say how a clinician actually ascertains it, or say plainly it needs a test or referral they will not perform themselves.
- Evidence honesty. We name the exact study design and evidence level, and never dress up a narrative review or case series as graded or pooled evidence. A claim of "excellent outcomes" with no numbers is called out as such.
- Never fabricate. No invented numbers, effect sizes, citations or landmark studies. If the data is not there, we say so and appraise cautiously.
- Practitioner voice. Written practitioner to practitioner, decisive enough to call a paper underpowered or overhyped, concrete, in UK spelling.
- Verdict discipline. The verdict is one of six fixed values (Practice-changing, Worth knowing, Watch this space, Overhyped, Not yet) and must be justified by the body of the appraisal. Confidence reflects the strength of the evidence, not the confidence of the writing.
Why we judge, not cheerlead
Most research communication tells you what a study found. We also tell you what it does not show, and we do it evenly, not only when we happen to dislike the conclusion. A positive headline gets the same scrutiny of its methods, its effect size and its limitations as a negative one. That symmetry is the point: it is a deliberate guard against the optimism bias that lets weak-but-agreeable findings travel further than they should.
So an appraisal you like and an appraisal you do not will have been held to the same test: is the effect clinically meaningful or merely statistically significant, does the design actually support the claim, and what is the single most important reason to be cautious. If we praise a paper, it is because it earned it under that test, not because its result was convenient.
Corrections, and how to challenge us
We would rather be corrected than be wrong. If you think an appraisal has misread a paper, misstated a number, or reached a verdict the evidence does not support, tell us and we will look again.
- Email hello@doseresponse.org with the appraisal (a link or the paper title) and what you think is wrong.
- Where you are right, we correct the appraisal and note that it was updated.
- Where it is a matter of judgement, we will engage with your reasoning rather than wave it away.
Every appraisal is editorially reviewed before it is published. Dose-Response is written for professional education, it is not clinical advice, and you should always read the primary source. doseresponse.org