ReviewNursing open2016
Peer review and the publication process.
Review in Nursing open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A narrative review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Fishing reviewing: A threat to research integrity and credibility.World journal of methodology · 2025Article
- Implementation of an open chemistry knowledge base with a Semantic Wiki.Journal of cheminformatics · 2025Article
- The Inside Scoop: What We Learnt About Getting into Academic Publishing During Our Editorial Internship.Medical science educator · 2024Article
- Improving reproducibility and reusability in the Journal of Cheminformatics.Journal of cheminformatics · 2023Article
- Editorial - nursing open: Introducing our new early career researcher editorial advisory board.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Improving the Reliability of Literature Reviews: Detection of Retracted Articles through Academic Search Engines.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2022Article
- Examining linguistic shifts between preprints and publications.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Article
- Motivators and barriers to research among doctors in the Indian medical scenario: A cross-sectional study from Karnataka, India.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
- Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Emerging nursing scholars guide to peer reviewing an academic manuscript.Nursing open · 2019Article
- Editorial.Nursing open · 2016Article
- Article
- Pattern of peer review proforma of medical journals of Pakistan.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
- Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analyses on Trends and Design of Adult Daycare Centers.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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
aimsTo provide an overview of the peer review process, its various types, selection of peer reviewers, the purpose and significance of the peer review with regard to the assessment and management of quality of publications in academic journals.
designDiscussion paper.
methodsThis paper draws on information gained from literature on the peer review process and the authors' knowledge and experience of contributing as peer reviewers and editors in the field of health care, including nursing.
resultsThere are various types of peer review: single blind; double blind; open; and post-publication review. The role of the reviewers in reviewing manuscripts and their contribution to the scientific and academic community remains important.
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.