ReviewJournal of the advanced practitioner in oncology2012
Peer Review: Publication's Gold Standard.
Review in Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peeling Back the Curtain: A Primer on the General Peer-Review and Publication Process in Behavior Analysis.Behavior analysis in practice · 2026Article
- Fishing reviewing: A threat to research integrity and credibility.World journal of methodology · 2025Article
- Silent protocol modifications in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: a registry-based cross-sectional study.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2025Article
- Music Therapy with Preterm Infants and Their Families after Hospital Discharge: An Integrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
- Seventy Percent of Abstracts Presented at the AANA Annual Meeting Are Later Published.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Article
- Editorial - The Use of Large Language Models in Science: Opportunities and Challenges.Principles and practice of clinical research (2015) · 2023Article
- Machine learning models can predict subsequent publication of North American Spine Society (NASS) annual general meeting abstracts.PloS one · 2023Article
- How to Be a Great Peer Reviewer.ACG case reports journal · 2022Article
- Insights Into the Publishing Process.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2022Article
- Reimagining the peer-review system for translational health science journals.Clinical and translational science · 2021Review
- Guidance for biostatisticians on their essential contributions to clinical and translational research protocol review.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Review
- What makes an effective grants peer reviewer? An exploratory study of the necessary skills.PloS one · 2020Article
- Why all doctors and health researchers should be peer-reviewers.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2019Article
- The state of the art in peer review.FEMS microbiology letters · 2018Article
- How do I peer-review a scientific article?-a personal perspective.Annals of translational medicine · 2018Article
- A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.F1000Research · 2017Review
- The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process.F1000Research · 2016Article
- Life Science's Average Publishable Unit (APU) Has Increased over the Past Two Decades.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Identifiers
25059293PMC4093306What 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.