Does the Anonymous Voice Have a Place in Scholarly Publishing?

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.

1. Ae Fond Fareweel1.Plant physiology · 2021
   Article
2. New Faces behind the Scenes.Plant physiology · 2018
   Article
3. Reflection on the Fazlul Sarkar versus PubPeer ("John Doe") Case.Science and engineering ethics · 2018
   Article
4. Are Pseudonyms Ethical in (Science) Publishing? Neuroskeptic as a Case Study.Science and engineering ethics · 2017
   Article
5. Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior.Science and engineering ethics · 2017
   Article
6. It may be easier to publish than correct or retract faulty biomedical literature.Croatian medical journal · 2017
   Article

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

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.