Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42292026›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of psychological medicine2026

Journal Instructions Are Not Optional: Yet Authors Still Ignore Them.

Rajshekhar Bipeta

Erratum issuedAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of psychological medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Rajshekhar BipetaDept. of Psychiatry, Government Medical College, Medak, Telangana, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6808-1183

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many authors view manuscript rejection as editorial bias, especially when it is before peer review. Often, the real reason is simple: basic journal instructions are not followed. Common problems include missing ethical declarations, absent checklists, improper formatting, and failure to follow journal-specific guidelines. These requirements are not arbitrary. They are based on frameworks such as ICMJE, CONSORT, PRISMA, and STROBE, which promote transparency, reproducibility, and efficiency. When authors do not comply, peer review slows, research is wasted, and scientific communication weakens. Good publishing starts before peer review, with close attention to journal instructions.

Indexed as

Editorial policiesmanuscripts as a topicpublishingreproducibility of resultsresearch reporting

Identifiers

PMID42292026
PMCPMC13259884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.