ReviewMedical journal, Armed Forces India2016
To publish and perish: A Faustian bargain or a Hobson's choice.
Review in Medical journal, Armed Forces India, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- An analysis of retractions in neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties.Acta neurochirurgica · 2021Article
- Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Review
- Publish and flourish: Take the road less travelled!Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2017Review
- Changing paradigm in the scientific publication process: Are we encouraging Science or Pseudoscience? Urgent need for introspection and self regulation.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2017Article
- Fraud and plagiarism: Important problem in scientific publication.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2016Article
- Scientific publications - Unscientific demeanor: Where are the problems?Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a matter of career choice, doctors have to choose between becoming an 'academic' or a 'practitioner.' To conduct research and publish articles in scientific journals is compulsory for the academic professional and mostly optional for the latter. The Medical Council of India has revised the eligibility qualifications for medical teachers over the past decade, and has now come out with regulations for streamlining the process of promotion by focusing on scientific papers, apart from clarifying on required experience and qualifications. 'Predatory publishers' are proliferating across the world, exploiting the reach of the Internet, and are enticing naïve professionals to publish their research work with them. The pitfalls of paid publishing in such journals may tarnish upcoming careers if doctors are not cautious. For a price, there are many publishers who will process articles without even rudimentary peer review; and for the sake of padding up of the resume, this Faustian bargain may eventually prove detrimental to authors, and thus with their professional credibility at stake, may prove to be a Hobson's choice. It is suggested for authors to make a wise choice and a correct decision when selecting a journal to submit their manuscripts.
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.