Comprehensive examination of the peer review process in academic medicine: Towards reaching unbiased decisions - Editorial.

Dino Fanfan, Mark McKenney, Adel Elkbuli

Abstract readEditorial

In one paragraph

Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dino FanfanDepartment of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Kendall Regional Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA.

Mark McKenneyDepartment of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Kendall Regional Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA.

Adel ElkbuliDepartment of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Kendall Regional Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

•The implementation of double- or triple-blind review practices will ensure that authors with worthwhile and prominent research will have fair and equitable review regardless of their prominence in the field.•Improving the quality of our reviews and raising the standings of our publishing authors. This makes way for healthy competition and a drive to produce high quality research.•It is our responsibility to limit or eliminate bias by promoting impartiality and increasing the level of transparency between the editorial teams and authors, allowing peer review to be more inclusive, instructional, and equitable.

Indexed as

Academic integrityBiasDoubleblindEditorial boardsPeer review processSingle blind peer-review process

Identifiers

PMID33815786

DOI10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102211

PMCPMC8010382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.