ArticlePharmacy practice
How many manuscripts should I peer review per year?
Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 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
- Major mistakes in scientific medical writing based on manuscripts' reviews.La Tunisie medicale · 2024Article
- Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.F1000Research · 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
- Investing in the Academic Writing: Training Future Reviewers and Sustaining Efficient and Quality Peer Review.Cureus · 2022Review
- Conducting a sensitive, constructive and ethical peer review.Nursing open · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review provides the foundation for the scholarly publishing system. The conventional peer review system consists of using authors of articles as reviewers for other colleagues' manuscripts in a collaborative-basis system. However, authors complain about a theoretical overwhelming number of invitations to peer review. It seems that authors feel that they are invited to review many more manuscripts than they should when taking into account their participation in the scholarly publishing system. The high number of scientific journals and the existence of predatory journals were reported as potential causes of this excessive number of reviews required. In this editorial, we demonstrate that the number of reviewers required to publish a given number of articles depends exclusively on the journals' rejection rate and the number of reviewers intended per manuscript. Several initiatives to overcome the peer review crises are suggested.
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.