ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2014
Manuscript rejection: how to submit a revision and tips on being a good peer reviewer.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Educator's Blueprint: Seven Strategies for Turning Peer Review Into Scholarly Growth.AEM education and training · 2026Article
- Supporting medical physics resident development through mentored journal peer review experiences.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor.Journal of forestry research · 2022Article
- A guide to peer reviewing for Spinal Cord.Spinal cord · 2021Review
- Article
- Authorship trends in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis: An update.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2020Article
- Application of a Feedback Journal Club.Chinese medical journal · 2017Article
- Reviews, reviewers and reviewing.International orthopaedics · 2017Article
- Publications and rejections.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many instructional guides have been published on how to write scientific papers. Likewise, many published articles have focused on the reasons why submitted manuscripts are rejected. However, fewer publications have been presented to guide authors on how to address reviewers' comments in a manuscript revision. Even fewer counsel authors on how to deal with a rejection decision. In this article, the authors present a literature review on the strategies to get a manuscript accepted, despite an initial unfavorable review. The authors share their experience with addressing reviewers' comments to get a manuscript accepted and published. Finally, the authors discuss the process of peer review and offer tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer.
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.