Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38533321›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Decoding the Rejection Code: Understanding Why Articles Get Axed.

Vishal V Bhende, Tanishq S Sharma, Mathangi Krishnakumar, Anikode Subramanian Ramaswamy, Kanchan Bilgi, Saptak P Mankad

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 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

6 authors.

Vishal V BhendePediatric Cardiac Surgery, Bhanubhai and Madhuben Patel Cardiac Centre, Shree Krishna Hospital, Bhaikaka University, Karamsad, IND.
Tanishq S SharmaPediatric Cardiac Surgery, Bhanubhai and Madhuben Patel Cardiac Centre, Shree Krishna Hospital, Bhaikaka University, Karamsad, IND.
Mathangi KrishnakumarAnaesthesiology, St John's Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, IND.
Anikode Subramanian RamaswamyPathology, PES Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Kuppam, IND.
Kanchan BilgiNeuro-anaesthesiology, People Tree Hospitals, Bengaluru, IND.
Saptak P MankadInternal Medicine, Dev Medical Hospital, Vadodara, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the competitive arena of medical publishing, manuscript rejection remains a significant barrier to disseminating research findings. This editorial delves into the multifaceted nature of manuscript rejection, elucidating common reasons and proposing actionable strategies for authors to enhance their chances of acceptance. Key rejection factors include a mismatch with journal scope, lack of novelty, methodological flaws, inconclusive results, ethical issues, poor presentation, data inaccessibility, author misconduct, and plagiarism. Ethical lapses, such as lacking informed consent, or submissions fraught with grammatical errors, further doom manuscripts. In addressing these pitfalls, authors are advised to ensure content originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and clear presentation. Aligning the manuscript with the journal's audience, scope, and editorial standards is crucial, as is professional conduct and responsiveness to feedback. Leveraging technological tools for citation management, grammar checking, and plagiarism detection can also significantly bolster manuscript quality. Ultimately, understanding and addressing common rejection reasons can empower authors to improve their submissions, contributing to the advancement of medical knowledge and their professional growth.

Indexed as

manuscript rejectionmedical writingpeer reviewspublication successsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38533321
PMCPMC10963210

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.