These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10195206)
1. Pros and cons of open peer review. Nat Neurosci; 1999 Mar; 2(3):197-8. PubMed ID: 10195206 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Pros and cons of PROs: a dialogue on the peer review program. Nathanson P; Aronson P Rev Fed Am Hosp; 1985; 18(3):53-5. PubMed ID: 10273646 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Moed HF Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz); 2009; 57(1):13-8. PubMed ID: 19219533 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Peer review and the evaluation of manuscripts. Crawford S Bull Med Libr Assoc; 1988 Jan; 76(1):75-7. PubMed ID: 3370379 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Peer review. Roe IL Am J Med Technol; 1978 May; 44(5):365. PubMed ID: 677147 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Peer review and the New York State Dental Journal. Feinberg E N Y State Dent J; 1997; 63(6):30-2. PubMed ID: 9333728 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. [Our editing work and analysis of peer review in 1994-98]. Loría A; Lisker R Rev Invest Clin; 2000; 52(1):52-9. PubMed ID: 10818811 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. How does peer review work? Aaron L Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Peer review is essential for both print and electronic publications. Weller AC MedGenMed; 2001 Nov; 3(4):5. PubMed ID: 11965200 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Speaking of peer review.. Allen AD Arch Dermatol; 1989 Jul; 125(7):1001-2. PubMed ID: 2742386 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]