Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33876779›Full record

ArticleIndian pediatrics2021

Publication Ethics.

Kirtisudha Mishra, Aashima Dabas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Authors, beware of plagiarism in medical writing.Journal of postgraduate medicine · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
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

2 authors.

Kirtisudha MishraDepartment of Pediatrics, Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalaya, New Delhi, India. Correspondence to: Dr K. Mishra, Assoc.Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalaya, Geeta Colony, Delhi. kirtisen@gmail.com.
Aashima DabasDepartment of Pediatrics, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Publications in the field of medical literature are a matter of prestige and fame for doctors. While genuine research contributes to the existing scientific knowledge, fraudulent data make publication unreliable, demeans the credibility of the author and reduces faith in science. Research misconduct includes the three cardinal sins fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. To promote highest standards in publication ethics, Committee on Publication Ethics provides advice and guidance to journals and publishers. Investigators should abide by ethical norms during the conduct of the research. Journals also maintain editorial standards and have well-defined policies for responding to misconduct. With an increase in medical publications over the years, it is important for all stakeholders to abide by publication ethics, in order to uphold the sanctity of research and credence in science.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchScientific MisconductHumansPlagiarism

Identifiers

PMID33876779
PMCPMC8384101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.