Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23533210›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology of the cell2013

Magazine or journal--what is the difference? The role of the monitoring editor.

Anthony Bretscher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology of the cell, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Anthony BretscherDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA. apb5@cornell.edu

Funding

MICROFILAMENT ORGANIZATION AND REGULATIONR01GM036652 · NIGMS · CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA · PI BRETSCHER, ANTHONY P. · 1986 to 2018
$8.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM036652
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific communication, career advancement, and funding decisions are all dependent on research publications. The way manuscripts are handled by high-visibility, professionally edited magazines differs from the way academic journals evaluate manuscripts, using active scientists as monitoring editors. In this essay, I discuss the benefits that come with the involvement of active scientists. I enumerate the decisions a monitoring editor has to make, and how he or she goes about making them. Finally, I indicate ways in which authors can help to make the process a smoother and more positive experience.

Indexed as

Editorial PoliciesBiomedical ResearchDecision MakingHumansPeer Review, ResearchPeriodicals as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23533210
PMCPMC3608498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.