Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42021710›Full record

ArticleeLife2026

Teaching early-career researchers how to respond to peer reviewers.

Eric Kalkhoven, Manon Kluijtmans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Eric KalkhovenCenter for Molecular Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9713-7286
Manon KluijtmansCenter for Education, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6601-7639

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The process of publishing a research article in a scientific journal inevitably involves revising the original version of the article to respond to the concerns raised by peer reviewers. In this article we describe a course module that introduces MSc students at Utrecht University in the Netherlands to this part of the publication process. During the module the students and an invited speaker actively discuss the revision process for a recent article by the speaker. Feedback from students and speakers on the module - which could be readily transferred to other courses in the life and biomedical sciences - has been largely positive.

Indexed as

Peer Review, ResearchResearch PersonnelHumansNetherlandsTeachingearly-career researchersgeneticsgenomicsmedicinenonepeer reviewPoint of Viewscientific publishing

Identifiers

PMID42021710
PMCPMC13105477

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.