557 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10613000)
1. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
Das Sinha S; Sahni P; Nundy S
Natl Med J India; 1999; 12(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 10613000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
Snell L; Spencer J
Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument.
Landkroon AP; Euser AM; Veeken H; Hart W; Overbeke AJ
Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Oct; 108(4):979-85. PubMed ID: 17012462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers.
Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty M
J Prof Nurs; 2009; 25(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 19306833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
Henly SJ; Dougherty MC
Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 19150263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
Frank E
Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.
Etemadi A; Raiszadeh F; Alaeddini F; Azizi F
Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S29-33. PubMed ID: 14968189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.
Kliewer MA; Freed KS; DeLong DM; Pickhardt PJ; Provenzale JM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Jun; 184(6):1731-5. PubMed ID: 15908521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology.
Collier A; Heilig L; Schilling L; Williams H; Dellavalle RP
Br J Dermatol; 2006 Dec; 155(6):1230-5. PubMed ID: 17107394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
Kearney MH; Freda MC
Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Improving the quality of manuscript reviews: impact of introducing a structured electronic template to submit reviews.
Rajesh A; Cloud G; Harisinghani MG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Jan; 200(1):20-3. PubMed ID: 23255737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Quality science and quality assurance: observations of an environmental scientist.
Hughes TJ
Qual Assur; 1999; 7(4):225-35. PubMed ID: 11191123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Statistical reviewing policies in dermatology journals: results of a questionnaire survey of editors.
Katz KA; Crawford GH; Lu DW; Kantor J; Margolis DJ
J Am Acad Dermatol; 2004 Aug; 51(2):234-40. PubMed ID: 15280842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Prepublication review of medical ethics research: cause for concern.
Landy DC; Coverdale JH; McCullough LB; Sharp RR
Acad Med; 2009 Apr; 84(4):495-7. PubMed ID: 19318788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
