ArticleBMC medicine2016
How to review a surgical paper: a guide for junior referees.
Article in BMC medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why research articles in acute care surgery get rejected: 10 critical mistakes to avoid.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2026Article
- How to Review a Surgical Scientific Paper: A Guide for Critical Appraisal.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2021Review
- Article
- Patient Safety in Surgery: practical tips for authors to circumvent the journal's high rejection rate.Patient safety in surgery · 2020Article
- Steps to Getting Your Manuscript Published in a High-Quality Medical Journal.Annals of surgical oncology · 2018Article
- Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals.Research integrity and peer review · 2018Article
- Improving the peer review skills of young rheumatologists and researchers in rheumatology: the EMEUNET Peer Review Mentoring Program.RMD open · 2018Review
- A Novel Individual Mentored Methodology to Peer Review for Residents/Fellows.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
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
Reviewing a surgical manuscript is not an easy task, and there is no formal training available for young referees in the early stage of their careers. Accepting a peer review assignment represents a personal honor for the invited referee and a fundamental ethical responsibility towards the scientific community. Designated reviewers must be accomplished and knowledgeable in the area of the respective topic of investigation. More importantly, they must be aware and cognizant about the cardinal ethical responsibility and stewardship for ensuring the preservation of scientific knowledge of unbiased and unquestionable accuracy in the published literature. Accepting a review assignment should never be taken lightly or considered a simple task, regardless of the reviewer's level of seniority and expertise. Indeed, there are multiple challenges, difficulties, and 'hidden dangers' that jeopardize the completion of a high-quality review, particularly in the hands of less experienced or novice reviewers. The present article was designed to provide a brief, concise, and practical guide on how to review manuscripts for the 'junior referee' in the field of surgery.
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.