566 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10613000)
21. How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.
Kurihara Y; Colletti PM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Sep; 201(3):468-70. PubMed ID: 23971437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.
Schroter S; Black N; Evans S; Carpenter J; Godlee F; Smith R
BMJ; 2004 Mar; 328(7441):673. PubMed ID: 14996698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Author perception of peer review.
Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR
Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal.
Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC
Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The art and science of reviewing manuscripts for orthopaedic journals: Part II. Optimizing the manuscript: practical hints for improving the quality of reviews.
Levine AM; Heckman JD; Hensinger RN
Instr Course Lect; 2004; 53():689-97. PubMed ID: 15116659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal.
Turcotte C; Drolet P; Girard M
Can J Anaesth; 2004; 51(6):549-56. PubMed ID: 15197116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers.
Navalta JW; Lyons TS
Adv Physiol Educ; 2010 Dec; 34(4):170-3. PubMed ID: 21098383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
Earnshaw JJ; Farndon JR; Guillou PJ; Johnson CD; Murie JA; Murray GD
Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2000 Apr; 82(4 Suppl):133-5. PubMed ID: 10889776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Tips for manuscript reviewers.
Davidhizar R; Bechtel GA
Nurse Author Ed; 2003; 13(3):1-4. PubMed ID: 12841086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Improvement in the quality of randomized controlled trials among general anesthesiology journals 2000 to 2006: a 6-year follow-up.
Greenfield ML; Mhyre JM; Mashour GA; Blum JM; Yen EC; Rosenberg AL
Anesth Analg; 2009 Jun; 108(6):1916-21. PubMed ID: 19448222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Development of a case report review instrument.
Ramulu VG; Levine RB; Hebert RS; Wright SM
Int J Clin Pract; 2005 Apr; 59(4):457-61. PubMed ID: 15853865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychiatry journals: what editors and reviewers want authors to know.
Harris AH; Reeder R; Hyun JK
J Psychiatr Res; 2009 Oct; 43(15):1231-4. PubMed ID: 19435635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
Polak JF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):685-8. PubMed ID: 7645496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Armstrong AW; Idriss SZ; Kimball AB; Bernhard JD
J Am Acad Dermatol; 2008 Apr; 58(4):632-5. PubMed ID: 18249470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
Manchikanti L; Datta S; Smith HS; Hirsch JA
Pain Physician; 2009; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Research papers submitted to Australian Family Physician - types and timelines.
Green R; Del Mar C
Aust Fam Physician; 2006 May; 35(5):362-4. PubMed ID: 16680221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Evaluating the surgery literature: can standardizing peer-review today predict manuscript impact tomorrow?
Sosa JA; Mehta P; Thomas DC; Berland G; Gross C; McNamara RL; Rosenthal R; Udelsman R; Bravata DM; Roman SA
Ann Surg; 2009 Jul; 250(1):152-8. PubMed ID: 19561471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
