ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026
Empowering researchers and healthcare professionals in academic publishing: key insights and practical lessons from the British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) workshop 2025.
Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) Academic Publishing Workshop, held at the Birmingham City Event Centre in the UK from 19 to 20 March 2025, provided practical guidance for early-career researchers and healthcare professionals seeking to understand and actively engage with the academic publishing process. This perspective extends the workshop's expert insights to those who were unable to attend, summarizing key lessons across five thematic sessions. The first session addressed journal selection, guiding participants on evaluating scope, impact metrics, open-access models and identifying predatory journals. The second explored peer-review models including single-blind, double-blind and open review, and reinforced reviewers' role as guardians of research integrity. The third session focused on writing effective structured abstracts and developing resilience in managing desk and post-review rejections. The fourth provided a practical framework for converting conference poster presentations into full manuscripts. The fifth examined the evolving role of artificial intelligence in academic publishing, including its benefits for writing support and literature discovery, alongside ethical considerations. Complementing these sessions, hands-on peer-review exercises enabled participants to develop and apply concrete manuscript evaluation skills in a collaborative setting. This perspective underscores that successful academic publishing demands continuous professional development, and that structured, expert-led training is essential for advancing research careers and maximizing scholarly impact.
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.