ArticleNeuroscience2025
Tips for quality publishing; lessons from the neuroscience editorial team.
Article in Neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In pursuit of excellence in scholarly publishing, the Neuroscience editorial team shares valuable insights that are essential for authors, reviewers, and the broader scientific community. Firstly, we emphasize that impactful research is built on rigorous study design and execution. Beyond fundamental methodological safeguards such as randomization and blinded analysis, we highlight the importance of thoughtfully selecting study models, with deliberate attention to biological variables like sex and gender, as well as appropriate nomenclature. Secondly, as technological innovations reshape research landscapes, we advocate for combining methodological rigor with suitable analytical tools to ensure robust data collection and transparent reporting. Thirdly, for manuscripts reaching the revision stage, we frame the response to reviewers as a strategic process that requires objectivity, diplomacy, and evidence-based rebuttals where necessary. Finally, we call for intentional prioritization of inclusivity and diversity across all stages of scientific inquiry - from laboratory collaborations to editorial decisions - and urge stakeholders to actively counteract implicit biases in manuscript evaluation and citation practices. By embedding these principles into the scientific workflow, we argue that the research community can foster not only greater rigor but also a more equitable and innovative scholarly ecosystem.
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.