ReviewMedical journal, Armed Forces India2017
Publish and flourish: Take the road less travelled!
Review in Medical journal, Armed Forces India, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predatory journals and meetings in forensic sciences: what every expert needs to know about this "parasitic" publishing model.Forensic sciences research · 2021Review
- Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research.International orthopaedics · 2019Review
- Medical Journal Armed Forces India: 75 years young!Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2019Article
- Rejected but not dejected: Dealing with an unfavourable decision on a scientific manuscript.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2018Review
- The preprint debate: What are the issues?Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2018Review
- Is it possible to control publication of predatory journals?Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2017Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific research and publications are essential for advancement of medical knowledge. The perceived need for 'publications' in medical journals, has increased substantially in view of the recently mandated requirement of original research publications in indexed journals to ensure career progression in academic institutions. There has been an unprecedented rise in the number of standalone journals and publishers, ready to process manuscripts on priority with almost guaranteed publication, at a cost. Many of these publishers have questionable credibility and could be regarded as 'predatory'. It is imperative for a concerted and broad based initiative to foster awareness creation among students at the post-graduate level and for faculty of medical colleges and research institutions. We need to adopt stringent measures to curtail this scourge of predatory publishing. It is advisable for researchers to take the road less travelled, and publish in 'reputed' and 'accepted' journals to flourish. This article aims to bring focus on to the present situation in the scientific publication arena in the Indian context, highlight emerging threats and suggest possible remedies.
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.