ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2020
SciPub-019-Getting Your Article Published in Scientific Journals- an Event Report.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe quantity and quality of published research from Nepal, though improving, are low. Among other factors, lack of knowledge about scientific writing is an important contributor. Thus, with the objective of improving knowledge about scientific writing, a one-day workshop was conducted, entitled, "SciPub-019-Getting your article published in scientific journals".
methodsThe knowledge and attitude of participants were evaluated both before and immediately after the workshop.
resultsThirty-three individuals participated with most (48.5%) being pharmacists, followed closely by doctors. 66.7% of the participants were males and 72.7% of participants had published one article as of the workshop date while the rest had published two. On specific questions, there was a significant difference between the responses regarding the abstract being the first part of the paper to be written, before and after the workshop. There was also a significant difference between the overall responses of the participants.
conclusionImprovement in the knowledge of the participants about scientific writing and publication was noted. Workshops of similar nature should be regularly conducted to improve the knowledge of new researchers about scientific writing.
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.