153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11310511)
21. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bruce R; Chauvin A; Trinquart L; Ravaud P; Boutron I
BMC Med; 2016 Jun; 14(1):85. PubMed ID: 27287500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers.
Song E; Ang L; Park JY; Jun EY; Kim KH; Jun J; Park S; Lee MS
PLoS One; 2021; 16(5):e0251440. PubMed ID: 34014958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing.
Lipworth WL; Kerridge IH; Carter SM; Little M
Soc Sci Med; 2011 Apr; 72(7):1056-63. PubMed ID: 21388730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey.
Tite L; Schroter S
J Epidemiol Community Health; 2007 Jan; 61(1):9-12. PubMed ID: 17183008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Effects of visitation among allied health professionals.
Hofhuis H; Van Den Ende CH; De Bakker DH
Int J Qual Health Care; 2006 Dec; 18(6):397-402. PubMed ID: 16959799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. How to be a good reviewer: A step-by-step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript.
Sedaghat AR; Bernal-Sprekelsen M; Fokkens WJ; Smith TL; Stewart MG; Johnson RF
Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol; 2024 Jun; 9(3):e1266. PubMed ID: 38835335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The role of peer assessment and peer review in nursing.
Gopee N
Br J Nurs; 2001 Jan 25-Feb 7; 10(2):115-21. PubMed ID: 12170494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.
Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Berlin JA; Callaham ML
Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Sep; 32(3 Pt 1):310-7. PubMed ID: 9737492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Guide for peer reviewers of scientific articles in the Croatian Medical Journal.
Marusić M; Sambunjak D; Marusić A
Croat Med J; 2005 Apr; 46(2):326-32. PubMed ID: 15849858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Tips for manuscript reviewers.
Davidhizar R; Bechtel GA
Nurse Author Ed; 2003; 13(3):1-4. PubMed ID: 12841086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Discussion between reviewers does not improve reliability of peer review of hospital quality.
Hofer TP; Bernstein SJ; DeMonner S; Hayward RA
Med Care; 2000 Feb; 38(2):152-61. PubMed ID: 10659689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The Reviewer Academy of the Society of Critical Care Medicine: Key Principles and Strategic Plan.
Alexander PMA; Aslakson RA; Barreto EF; Lee JH; Meissen H; Morrow BM; Nazer L; Branson RD; Mayer KP; Napolitano N; Lane-Fall MB; Sikora A; John PR; Dellinger RP; Parker M; Argent A; Boateng A; Green TP; Kudchadkar SR; Maslove DM; Rech MA; Sorce LR; Tasker RC; Buchman TG; Checchia PA
Crit Care Med; 2023 Sep; 51(9):1111-1123. PubMed ID: 37341529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. 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]
36. How to review a manuscript.
Alam M
Dermatol Surg; 2015 Aug; 41(8):883-8. PubMed ID: 26218722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
Justice AC; Cho MK; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Rennie D
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):240-2. PubMed ID: 9676668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.
Chauvin A; Ravaud P; Baron G; Barnes C; Boutron I
BMC Med; 2015 Jul; 13():158. PubMed ID: 26141137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Scientific composition and review of manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals.
Bayne SC; McGivney GP; Mazer SC
J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):201-18. PubMed ID: 12616242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
