ArticlePharmacy practice
Peer review and publication delay.
Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: the Granada Statements.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2024Article
- [Improving the Quality of Publications in and Advancing the Paradigms of Clinical and Social Pharmacy Practice Research: The Granada Statements].Farmaceuticos comunitarios · 2023Article
- Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: the Granada Statements.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
- Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: The Granada statements.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Article
- Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: The Granada Statements.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- How many manuscripts should I peer review per year?Pharmacy practiceArticle
- Authors, peer reviewers, and readers: What is expected from each player in collaborative publishing?Pharmacy practiceArticle
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
Selecting peer reviewers is a crucial stage of the editorial process that ensures the quality of scholarly publications. An alternative to selecting peer reviewers from data bases created with expressions of interest of volunteers consists in systematically searching PubMed for similar articles and inviting their authors to act as peer reviewers. Although this process might identify more appropriate peers, it also can increase the time of the editorial process. In 2018, Pharmacy Practice had to invite 4.70 (SE=0.33) potential reviewers per one accepting. The time from the first reviewer invitation to the last reviewer report received was 61 days (SE=2.1). These figures confirm the existence of a peer review crisis which is significantly increasing the publication delay.
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.