ArticleAnnals of medical and health sciences research2013
Publication of research article: an art or science?
Article in Annals of medical and health sciences research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The increasing urgency for standards in basic biologic research.Cancer research · 2014Article
- Possible recurrence of keratocyst in nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome: A review of literature.European journal of dentistry · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The publication process is a shared responsibility. Besides the writing, reviewing, publishing, and editorial teams, readers are one of the most important pillars of this process. Readers and authors cannot be dealt with separately, because most of the readers are authors. The varieties of articles and improvement in presentations reflect the rising interest and enthusiasm of writers and readers. Increasing number in critical comments and author's reply can be considered as a post-publication peer review process. Impact Factor, which was used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal, is now being considered a misleading tool in assessing the quality of a paper or the researcher. Here, we are trying to discuss in brief the points which should be kept in mind before manuscript preparation and submission, so that our research should reach to maximum readers in an unbiased form.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.