Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35698009›Full record

ArticleClinical rheumatology2022

Evaluation of the quality and subsequent performance of manuscripts rejected by Clinical Rheumatology: a research report.

Aldo Barajas-Ochoa, Antonio Cisneros-Barrios, Cesar Ramos-Remus

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Aldo Barajas-OchoaDepartment of Medicine, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4510-0534
Antonio Cisneros-BarriosCentro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, México.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9309-6395
Cesar Ramos-RemusUnidad de Investigacion en Enfermedades Cronico-Degenerativas, Colomos 2292, Providencia, 44620, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. ramosremus@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4898-4219

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the quality and performance of manuscripts previously rejected by a rheumatology-focused journal.

methodsThis was a cross-sectional, audit-type, exploratory study of manuscripts submitted to Clinical Rheumatology (CLRH) and rejected by one associate editor in 2019. We used a 36-item quality assessment instrument (5-point ordinal scale, 1 being worst). Performance variables included whether a rejected manuscript was published in another PubMed-listed journal, impact factor of the publishing journal (Scimago), number of citations (Web of Science), and social media attention (Altmetrics). Exploratory variables included authors' past publications, use of reporting guidelines, and text structure. Exploratory variables were assessed using non-parametric tests.

resultsIn total, 165 manuscripts were rejected. Reporting guidelines were used in only five (4%) manuscripts. The mean overall quality rating was 2.48 ± 0.73, with 54% of manuscripts rated 2; 40-80% were rated < 3 on crucial items. Over a 26-month follow-up, 79 (48%) rejected manuscripts were published in other journals, mostly with lower impact factors; 70% of these had at least one citation, compared with 90.5% for manuscripts published in CLRH. Altmetrics was significantly lower for manuscripts published elsewhere than for those published in CLRH. As for text structure, the methods and results sections were shorter and the discussion longer than suggested. The corresponding authors' past experience and text structure were not associated with quality or acceptance.

conclusionsResearch report quality is an area for improvement, mainly for items critical to explaining the research and findings. The use of reporting guidelines should be encouraged by journals. Key Points • The quality of research reports (in rejected manuscripts) is insufficient. • Guidelines for reporting are seldom used in rejected manuscripts. • A manuscript rejected by Clinical Rheumatology may subsequently be published in another journal with a lower impact factor and have fewer citations and less social media attention than accepted manuscripts.

Indexed as

Peer Review, ResearchRheumatologyCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPublishingResearch ReportEditorial policiesJournal impact factorManuscripts, medical as topic*Peer review, researchPublishing/statistics & numerical data*Rheumatology/statistics & numerical data

Identifiers

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.