Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39441447›Full record

ArticleNeurosurgical review2024

The delicate nature of a constructive peer review: pearls from the editorial board.

Keng Siang Lee, Brian T Jankowitz, Christopher Hong, Nicholas G Candy, Tak Lap Poon, Joacir Graciolli Cordeiro, Osvaldo Vilela-Filho, Daniel M Prevedello

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurosurgical review, 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. Review
  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

8 authors.

Keng Siang LeeDepartment of Neurosurgery, King's College Hospital, London, UK. mrkengsianglee@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2308-0579
Brian T JankowitzDepartment of Neurosurgery, JFK University Medical Center, Edison, NJ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5371-5363
Christopher HongDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, USA.
Nicholas G CandyDepartment of Surgery - Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8826-1840
Tak Lap PoonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, China.
Joacir Graciolli CordeiroDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami Hospital, Miami, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8709-6644
Osvaldo Vilela-FilhoDivision of Neurosurgery, Medical School, Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil.
Daniel M PrevedelloDepartment of Neurosurgery, Wexner Medical Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0214-2339

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peer review stands as a cornerstone of academic publishing, especially in the era of evidence-based neurosurgery - the scientific literature relies on proficient peer reviewers. Providing a constructive peer review is an art and learned skill that requires knowledge of study design and expertise in the neurosurgical subspeciality. Peer reviewers guard against arbitrary decision-making and are essential in ensuring that published manuscripts are of the highest quality. However, there remains a scarcity in the formal training relating to the peer review process. The objective of this article is therefore to shed light on this process through the lens of the Editorial Board. We encourage our invited peer reviewers to make use of this guide when appraising potential manuscripts.

Indexed as

NeurosurgeryEditorial PoliciesHumansPeer ReviewPeer Review, ResearchPeriodicals as TopicPublishingNeurosurgeryPeer reviewResearch methodologySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39441447

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.