ArticleATS scholar2022
How We Review a Medical Education Research Manuscript.
Article in ATS scholar, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Collaborative Approach to Mentored Peer Reviews Sponsored by the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- How to Peer Review a Neurology Education Manuscript.Neurology. Education · 2023Review
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
Peer review is a necessary and important component of scholarly publication. When done well, it benefits both the reviewer and authors and improves the science itself. However, the skills of effective peer review are rarely taught. In the adolescent field of medical education research, peer review is especially important to advance the scientific rigor of the field. From our experience reviewing biomedical and medical education research, we have found that a thorough review takes multiple readings and multiple hours. The first reading provides a general overview of the aims and methods. Subsequent readings focus on the details of the methodology, results, and interpretation. The written review should provide firm but gentle feedback that the authors can use to improve their work, even if we have recommended rejection for this submission. We hope that this description of our process for reviewing a medical education research manuscript will assist others and thereby advance the quality of publications in our field.
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.