不需要登入、不需要報名。這些是新思惟公開問答頁裡最常被參考的問題，英文版由中文原文翻譯。
31 articles
Usually no. If you must, wait 1.5 times the journal's typical turnaround, and write to offer help, not to complain.
No. Do the calculation with an online tool, put it in a table in your reply letter, and keep the tone polite.
Weigh two things: whether the receiving journal has the impact factor you need, and whether it charges an article processing charge. You can also do your own "portable review" inside the same publisher family by disclosing the earlier rejection and answering it.
Use the median as the mean, divide the IQR by 1.35 to estimate the SD when the data are roughly normal, or let an online calculator do it for you.
The two hard steps are making the study feasible and getting it accepted. Search the literature thoroughly, plan around the resources you actually have, and run the numbers and figures before you write the text.
If the treatment is new and the field is interested, frame it as a feasibility study or early experience: stress feasibility and safety, and compare outcomes with the literature in the Discussion.
Yes. Pooling controlled studies is valued more, but when single-arm studies are all your field has, pooling them is meaningful and publishable, especially if no one has done it yet.
Decide the story first; Table 1 is built by hand to serve it. Report descriptive statistics for each group side by side, and leave out significance tests of baseline differences.
Either drop the arms that are not relevant to your comparison, or combine the eligible arms into a single group, as the Cochrane Handbook recommends. Combine SDs with the Handbook's formula, which uses N − 1.
Either is fine. I report all three: it satisfies the reviewer, and future meta-analysts will not need to convert back to the SD. For small groups, the CI should use the t distribution.
This is inter-observer variability, and the method is a Bland-Altman plot. Repeated measurements by the same person are intra-observer variability.
A difference in means works when all studies share a scale; otherwise use the SMD or Hedges' g. For randomized trials, reviewers increasingly expect the Cochrane RoB 2 tool rather than Jadad scoring.
For a first network meta-analysis, about ten trials is a good balance, with five or six as a minimum. A treatment can enter the network with a single trial.
No. Identical pills are about blinding. Allocation concealment means nobody enrolling patients can know the next assignment, for example with opaque sealed envelopes or central randomization. Blocks filled in order of enrollment are still random if the order within each block was random.
It is large but not abnormal. Conversion errors usually produce values of 3 or 4. If you have checked your extraction, you have done your part.
Don't remove a study after the fact without a rule. Keep the original analysis, and show the reviewer a sensitivity analysis without that study or an analysis by risk of bias. If you do change the analysis, report it as a change from your protocol.
A before-and-after comparison in the same patients and a comparison between two groups are different quantities. Crossover trials can be pooled with parallel-group trials using the paired effect estimate, ideally as a separate subgroup.
Yes. Convert the CI to an SD by hand (the width times √n, divided by 3.92 for a 95% CI or 3.29 for a 90% CI; use t values for small groups), then enter it into CMA. The Cochrane Handbook gives the formulas and is easy to cite.
Hedges' g, especially with small samples.
Unsolicited reviews are accepted more readily when you have published in the field, when your clinical work and images are outstanding, or when you see a pattern others missed and quantify it with a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Choose a field where you already have a track record, a topic residents would want to download on sight, or one where you have a distinctive view of your own.
Read recent issues to see how other authors wrote these sections, and follow their angle. Each section of a paper has its own purpose, even when two sections look alike.
My advice to early-career researchers: be gentle. Prefer a courteous query, don't disparage earlier authors in your Discussion, and in an updated meta-analysis simply extract the correct numbers.
Thank the writers, explain how the studies they cite differ, give the dates of those published after your submission, and add any further studies you found yourself.
Reject-and-resubmit has become common. Revise, resubmit quickly, and say in the cover letter that the editor invited it and what you changed.
Check every word. Typesetting errors in affiliations, author names, text and references are common.
From my experience reviewing for traditional journals: some papers go straight to reviewers, while others wait in an unclear pool. An "undecided" status is still much better than a rejection.
If the price is the same, it depends on how you feel about commercial reuse. I lean toward CC BY.
In my experience, most major revisions end in acceptance when authors identify the reviewer's two or three core concerns and answer them with respect and evidence.
Yes: cite it, and say the data come from a larger project. Don't copy text between the two, and make sure each paper asks a distinct question, or you risk being criticized for salami slicing.
Start the next paper. Writing the next one, perhaps of a different type, turns your attention to productive work, and news on the first one tends to arrive while you are busy.
這些回答是經驗與建議，不是規定。你的稿件以目標期刊的規定為準，你的研究以所屬機構的倫理審查為準。