ArticleBiochemia medica2014
Peer-review policy and guidelines for Biochemia Medica Journal.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Your article needs revision? - How to improve it successfully and answer to the reviewers' comments.Biochemia medica · 2021Article
- A guide to peer reviewing for Spinal Cord.Spinal cord · 2021Review
- Article
- Application of a Feedback Journal Club.Chinese medical journal · 2017Article
- Predatory journals and their effects on scientific research community.Biochemia medica · 2017Article
- Do Croatian open access journals support ethical research? Content analysis of instructions to authors.Biochemia medica · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review is widely used system for evaluating manuscripts prior to publication. It has been and still is widely used tool for making justified and fair editorial decision. However, the evidence of its efficacy is limited and it has been criticized to be time-consuming, biased, inconsistent, conservative, and open to abuse. As a result, researchers, editors and policymakers have questioned its objectivity and purpose. Nevertheless, this should not be the reason for abandoning the principles of peer review, but to make the additional efforts towards its improvement. Therefore, this Research Integrity Corner aims to describe basic principles of peer review and to introduce Biochemia Medica's guidelines for peer reviewers. Our intention is to help our peer reviewers provide evaluations that are as fair and objective as possible, while helping the journal publish innovative research of the highest quality.
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.