Ethical Priority Setting for Successful Publishing by Iranian Scientists.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Plagiarism, Fake Peer-Review, and Duplication: Predominant Reasons Underlying Retractions of Iran-Affiliated Scientific Papers.Science and engineering ethics · 2020
   Article
2. A review of the current concerns about misconduct in medical sciences publications and the consequences.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2020
   Review
3. PubMed Central archiving: a major milestone for a scholarly journal.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2020
   Article
4. Comprehensive Approach to Open Access Publishing: Platforms and Tools.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019
   Review
5. Open Access Journals in the Middle East and Iran.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019
   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.

Indexed as