Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36608046›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Does China Pakistan Economic Corridor become an avenue to achieve sustainable development goal no. 2 (food security) in Pakistan: Under the condition of COVID-19?

Nida Baig, Shahbaz Khan, Imran Bashir, Jianfu Ma

RetractedErratum issuedAbstract readRetracted Publication
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nida BaigDepartment of Public Administration, Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Shahbaz KhanFaculty of Management Sciences, Foundation University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0001-5043-5713
Imran BashirFaculty of Management Sciences, Foundation University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Jianfu MaSchool of Ethnology, North Minzu University, Yinchuan, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9165-156X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The post Covid-19 era steer towards stakeholder thinking, which demands to look for sustainable solutions in terms of other epidemics and food security is one of the most notable for the developing world. In South Asia, China Pakistan Economic Corridor could be an avenue for multi-layered socio-economic assistance where Pakistan can seek solution for one epidemic (food security) while engaged with the effects of pandemic through studying all the stakeholders. This could be a roadmap for the west-east or developed-underdeveloped countries reliance on one another for food security through economic corridor alike settings. Academically, it has been projected by the plethora of research that holistically and inclusively, stakeholder analysis is lacking in the available reservoir of research. Methodologically, the stakeholder analysis was performed in three layers-identification, investigation through social networks, and communication by prioritization matrix. The findings suggested that apart from stakeholders' differences in regard to interest, influence and knowledge, all of them agreed with the argument that China Pakistan Economic Corridor has enviably and irrefutably positive effects on food security. The policy implications project the need for integrated reports of various ministries to be unidirectional for having synergical effect and taking all the stakeholders into consideration as leaving any group behind will repeat the past results.

Indexed as

COVID-19Sustainable DevelopmentChinaFood SecurityHumansPakistan

Identifiers

PMID36608046
PMCPMC9821420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.