ReviewSaudi journal of anaesthesia2019
The peer review process.
Review in Saudi journal of anaesthesia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inclusive Initiatives in Health Professions Education: A Journal-Led Peer Reviewer Development Initiative.The clinical teacher · 2026Article
- AI-assisted peer review: efficiency for reviewers, burden for authors-a narrative review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Exploring the Multifaceted Role of Scientific Paper and Poster Presentations: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Fishing reviewing: A threat to research integrity and credibility.World journal of methodology · 2025Article
- The undeclared use of third-party service providers in academic publishing is unethical: an epistemic reflection and scoping review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Article
- How to be a good reviewer: A step-by-step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Review
- The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.British journal of biomedical science · 2024Review
- Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Article
- Pre-Residency Research Engagement and Subsequent Publication Output Among Orthopaedic Surgery Applicants.JB & JS open accessArticle
- Peer reviewing an original research paper.Journal of postgraduate medicineArticle
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
The peer review process provides a foundation for the credibility of scientific findings in medicine. The following article discusses the history of peer review in scientific and medical journals, the process for the selection of peer reviewers, and how journal editors arrive at a decision on submitted manuscripts. To aid authors who are invited to revise their manuscripts for further consideration, we outline steps for considering reviewer comments and provide suggestions for organizing the author's response to reviewers. We also examine ethical issues in peer review and provide recommendations for authors interested in becoming peer reviewers themselves.
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.