ReviewSeminars in vascular surgery2022
The art of peer review: Guidelines to become a credible and constructive peer reviewer.
Review in Seminars in vascular surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retractions of publications in radiomics: An underestimated problem?European radiology · 2026Review
- Paying peer reviewers: benefits, risks, and challenges.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Supporting medical physics resident development through mentored journal peer review experiences.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Exploring the Multifaceted Role of Scientific Paper and Poster Presentations: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Fishing reviewing: A threat to research integrity and credibility.World journal of methodology · 2025Article
- Editor's Take: Perspectives on Editorial Experience as a Gastroenterology Fellow at American College of Gastroenterology Case Reports Journal.ACG case reports journal · 2025Article
- Reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals: recommendations for early career scientists.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Ethics statements in Rheumatology journals: present practices and future directions.Rheumatology international · 2024Article
- Implementation of a novel peer review academy by Surgery and the Association of Women Surgeons.Surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Peer review is a learned skill set that requires knowledge of study design, review construct, ethical considerations, and general expertise in a field of study. Participating in peer review is a rewarding and valuable experience in which all academic physicians are encouraged to partake. However, formal training opportunities in peer review are limited. In 2021, the Association of Women Surgeons and the journal Surgery collaborated to develop a Peer Review Academy. This academy is a 1-year longitudinal course that offers a select group of young women surgical trainees across all specialties a curriculum of monthly lectures and multiple formal mentored peer review opportunities to assist them in developing the foundation necessary to transition to independent peer review. The trainees and faculty mentors participating in the Association of Women Surgeons-Surgery Peer Review Academy compiled a summary of best peer review practices, which is intended to outline the elements of the skill set necessary to become a proficient peer reviewer.
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.