Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26557542›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2015

"Why We Say No! A Look Through the Editor's Eye".

Aarti Garg, Sunanda Das, Hemant Jain

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Justifying No-Better Than Never.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016
    Article
  7. Author's disclosure.Indian heart journal
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Aarti GargAssistant Editor, Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research , Delhi, India .
Sunanda DasAssistant Editor, Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research , Delhi, India .
Hemant JainAssistant Editor, Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research , Delhi, India .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rapidly flourishing health science has provided a ground to perform research work and contribute to the field of science. On the other hand, reporting the research is equally important as carrying out research. Many such researches and their ground breaking work remain unreported or do not reach the guild, because of poor drafting skills. In nine years since Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) inception, editorial have come across many manuscripts which are clinically and socially relevant in their message, but lack legible drafting. It was felt that an objective analysis of the reasons for rejection, of manuscripts, is required.

aimThe present study was conducted with the aim to determine the reasons for rejection of medical and dental manuscript submitted in JCDR. MATERIALS AND

methodsRetrospective analysis of 1000 consecutive medical and dental articles submitted to JCDR since 1(st) August 2014 was done. Only those articles (902) that reached the end point on decision were considered. The reasons of rejection for medical and dental articles were enlisted and analyzed. When there were multiple reasons of rejection and all of them were critical, then they were counted in all the categories.

resultsOut of the 902 consecutive articles 522 articles underwent rejection. Among the rejected ones, dental specialty comprised of 43.5% and medical articles contributed 56.5%. The most frequent reasons for rejection were commonality (44.6%), non compliance by authors (17.8%), methodological issues (17.3%), plagiarism (11.1%), received same topic and published (7.66%), poor draft (6.70%), data inconsistency (5.77%), mismanagement (1.72%), blacklisted author (1.14%), ethical and out of scope were 0.57% each.

conclusionBased on our findings, it can be concluded that manuscript rejection can be avoided by the authors, if the topic is well choosen and communication is maintained with the journal editorial.

Indexed as

FabricationManuscriptPeer reviewPlagiarismRejection

Identifiers

PMID26557542
PMCPMC4625261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.