ArticleEJIFCC2023
Scientific Journals Should Encourage, Not Hinder, Debates About Their Published Papers.
Article in EJIFCC, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rethinking peer review: ethics and blind spots of scientific gatekeeping.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The revolution in electronic publishing now allows for papers to be continuously critiqued through letters to the editor, online comments, tweets and other means. However, established top-ranked journals still pose serious barriers regarding cultivation, documentation and dissemination of post publication critiques (1). To improve on this situation, Hardwicke et al. published a set of rules, one being for journals to actively encourage and highlight post publication critique to their readership. In this commentary, I present a case whereby the editors of a top ranked journal hindered the discussion/debate between authors and expert readers. Highlighting and publishing such cases will likely put pressure on journals to modify their current policies and actively encourage post publication review. Like Hardwicke et al., we believe that post publication review is a major vehicle for advancing and accelerating science, by encouraging debates, resolving disagreements and revealing flaws in already published (and in many cases seemingly high-impact) papers.
Identifiers
37124652PMC10131242What 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.