با گذاشتن سند بره مسافرت ؟؟؟!!!!!!
واقعا با خودتون چه فکری میکنید که چنین حرفایی میزنید؟ لکه ننگ و سیاه ترین نقطه تاریخید..

#برده_داری_نوین!

اما پاسخ این کامنت:

12. You can consider using newer methods like the Hartung-Knapp adjustment.
Reply: We thank the reviewer for suggesting. In our study, we utilized the DerSimonian and Laird (DL) random-effects model, a widely accepted method for meta-analyses, due to its computational simplicity and historical prevalence in the field. While we acknowledge that the HKSJ adjustment has gained traction in recent years for improving the precision of confidence interval estimation, particularly in small-sample meta-analyses, its application may not always be necessary or advantageous.
In our case, the number of included studies and their sample sizes were sufficient to yield stable estimates using the DL method. Moreover, the results were rigorously tested for robustness through sensitivity analyses, ensuring the reliability of the reported findings. We also assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and conducted subgroup and meta-regression analyses to explore potential sources of variability, adhering to best practices in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
It is important to note that the Hartung-Knapp adjustment can produce overly conservative intervals when heterogeneity is low or the number of studies is large, which may not reflect the true uncertainty in the estimates. To further address this comment, we have reviewed our analyses and confirmed that our primary conclusions remain robust and unaffected by the choice of statistical adjustment.
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and will consider implementing the Hartung-Knapp adjustment in future meta-analyses, where appropriate, to further enhance the methodological rigor. However, we believe that the methods employed in the present study are scientifically valid and align with current standards in meta-analytic research.

+تراپی؟!
-نه ممنون! با بهترین استاد ایران کار میکنیم 🤓

خیلی جالب بود که من دونفر از بچه های کانال رو به این ژورنال معرفی کردم و ژورنال برای هردونفرشون داوری اون مقاله رو فرستاد 😁💪

اون کیه که دو روز دیگه دوتا امتحان عجیب داره و تازه ذوق پژوهشیش گل کرده و تصمیم گرفته روی پژوهش بیشترررر از همیشه وقت بذاره؟؟
✋✋


پ ن: به صورت عجیبی این ژورنال داره برام داوری میفرسته، فکر میکنم با این وضعیت احتمالا کل ایشو بعدیشون رو من داوری کرده باشم 😂🧑‍🦽

یکی دیگه هم همین چند دقیقه پیش فرستادن.

این یک متا مشاهده ای در زمینه قلب و عروق است که یک تیم ایرانی هم انجامش دادن.

نظرتون هست پس از داوری این کار ارزشمند، کامنت هایی که برای این مقاله میذاریم رو اینجا باهاتون به اشتراک بذارم تا با روند و کامنت های داوری بیشتر آشنا بشید؟
این کار میتونه برای افرادی که تازه داوری مقالات رو آغاز کردند هم مفید باشه و یا اگه دوست دارید در آینده سمت داوری مقالات برید این کامنت ها شمارو بیشتر با فضا داوری مقالات علمی آشنا میکنه 🤓

فیگر اول مقاله - پریزما (نسخه نهایی)

قسمتی از فیگر که هایلایت زرد رنگ دارد، وابسته به جدول۲ ساپلیمنت مقاله (همان جدول اکسکلودها) تغییر خواهد کرد. مابقی فیگر، به جز تغییر در اعداد، دست نخورده باقی خواهد ماند.

@MetaWithMan

به علت اینکه این مقاله مال یک تیم ایرانی بود و گفتم شاید بشناسیدشون(🙄!)، من کامنت های یک مقاله دیگه که امشب داوریش رو انجام دادم و برای یک تیم از رفقای پژوهشگرمون از عربستان بود رو براتون میذارم. باشد که کسی دلگیر نشود.

مقاله ای که داوری کردم در رابطه با Hs-CRP و آترواسکلروز بود - مقاله برای ژورنال BMC Cardiovascular Disorders بود. موضوع جالبی بود و به موارد جالب و جدیدی هم پرداخته بود. منتهی مشکلات اساسی زیادی داشت.

برای این مقاله 22 کامنت به نویسندگان دادم، بعضی از کامنت ها بر روی محتوا و اساس کار نویسندگان بود و محتوای مقاله رو فاش میکنه و من نمیتونم اون ها رو در اینجا قرار بدم. ولی من 5 کامنت که جنبه کلی تر دارن رو اینجا براتون قرار میدم - امیدوارم این کامنت ها بهتون ایده و جهت فکری بده و بتونید از این موارد در داوری های خودتون (یا حتی تصحیح مقاله های خودتون برای اینکه بدونید داوران معمولا روی چه قسمت هایی بیشتر دست میذارن و براشون مهم تره) استفاده کنید:

7. Did the authors explore other potential sources for included articles, such as grey literature? If so, provide details.

9. According to the PRISMA checklist, it is recommended that the first paragraph of the Discussion address your findings in general terms.

10. The PRISMA checklist recommends providing the complete search strategy for all databases. Presenting the search strategy in a simple table is insufficient and needs improvement.

15. Why was a meta-analysis not conducted? What justifies conducting a systematic review on this topic? Discuss why other study designs, such as a scoping review, were not chosen.

22. Based on my research, the percentage of AI-generated content in this article appears high. If AI tools were used in drafting the article, this should be explicitly acknowledged in the acknowledgments section.

اگر این نوع پست ها براتون مفید هست و استقبال شد سعی میکنم هربار که داوری انجام میدم تعدادی از کامنت هارو اینجا باهاتون به اشتراک بذارم🤓

و حالا انگشت سمت چه دکمه ای رفت؟ - آفرین درست گفتید ریجکت شد.💔

چرا و کامنتم به ادیتور چی بود؟

Dear Dr Dyrbuś,

I have had the opportunity to thoroughly review the manunoscript noscriptd "BALA BALA!" The topic is undoubtedly of great scientific interest and relevance, particularly given the growing emphasis on biomarkers for cardiovascular health. However, while the authors have made commendable efforts in compiling this review, the manunoscript contains numerous critical flaws that significantly impact its overall quality, rigor, and applicability.

The most pressing concerns include:
1. Language and Writing Quality: The manunoscript requires substantial editing for grammar, English language proficiency, and adherence to academic writing conventions.
2. Methodological Shortcomings: The lack of a clearly defined objective undermines the focus and purpose of the study. Additionally, the manunoscript does not provide a comprehensive search strategy or justify the exclusion of essential databases such as Cochrane and ProQuest.
3. PRISMA Compliance: The study does not fully adhere to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The presentation of the search strategy, inclusion of a checklist as a supplementary appendix, and updating Figure 1 to align with these standards are all missing or inadequately addressed.
4. Generalizability and Rigor: The study does not explore grey literature or other potential sources for articles. Furthermore, the lack of a qualitative assessment table and a detailed denoscription of the PICO framework detracts from its methodological rigor.
5. Incomplete Discussion and Implications: The Discussion section fails to provide an adequate interpretation of the findings, lacks consideration of factors influencing the results, and omits a thorough explanation of clinical implications. The current strengths and limitations section is too brief and requires further elaboration.
6. Lack of Meta-Analysis: The absence of a meta-analysis or justification for choosing this specific study design further limits the robustness and utility of the findings.
7. Transparency and AI Usage: The high likelihood of AI-generated content in the manunoscript raises ethical and transparency concerns. If AI was utilized in drafting the article, this must be explicitly disclosed in the acknowledgments section.

While these concerns are numerous, they highlight fundamental issues in the manunoscript’s design, execution, and reporting. As such, I find the generalizability and reliability of the study’s findings to be significantly compromised.
Given these limitations, I respectfully recommend that this manunoscript be rejected in its current form. While the authors have demonstrated effort in addressing an important topic, the article requires substantial revisions that extend beyond minor corrections and refinements. I hope that the authors can use this feedback to improve their work and resubmit after addressing these critical flaws.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manunoscript. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require further clarification regarding my comments.

Sincerely,
Ali Jafari