Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38327220›Full record

ReviewAustralasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists2024

An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences.

Edward Miller, Michael James Weightman, Ashna Basu, Andrew Amos, Vlasios Brakoulias

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Australasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Edward MillerDivision of Psychological Medicine, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-5643-7648
Michael James WeightmanSchool of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia; College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8451-2529
Ashna BasuPrince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW Australia; Discipline of Psychiatry and Mental Health, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Committee for Research, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatry, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6422-7576
Andrew AmosSchool of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9145-0212
Vlasios BrakouliasSchool of Medicine and Translational Health Research Institute (THRI), Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Specialty of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The Univesity of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4188-4370

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis paper aims to provide an introductory resource for beginner peer reviewers in psychiatry and the broader biomedical science field. It will provide a concise overview of the peer review process, alongside some reviewing tips and tricks.

conclusionThe peer review process is a fundamental aspect of biomedical science publishing. The model of peer review offered varies between journals and usually relies on a pool of volunteers with differing levels of expertise and scope. The aim of peer review is to collaboratively leverage reviewers' collective knowledge with the objective of increasing the quality and merit of published works. The limitations, methodology and need for transparency in the peer review process are often poorly understood. Although imperfect, the peer review process provides some degree of scientific rigour by emphasising the need for an ethical, comprehensive and systematic approach to reviewing articles. Contributions from junior reviewers can add significant value to manuscripts.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchPeer Review, ResearchHumansPeer ReviewPeriodicals as TopicPsychiatrybiomedical publishingmedical educationpeer reviewpsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID38327220
PMCPMC11103892

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.