153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11310511)
41. Designs of trials assessing interventions to improve the peer review process: a vignette-based survey.
Heim A; Ravaud P; Baron G; Boutron I
BMC Med; 2018 Oct; 16(1):191. PubMed ID: 30318018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Peer review to ensure quality in forensic mental health publication.
Felthous AR; Wettstein RM
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2014; 42(3):305-14. PubMed ID: 25187283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Toward a peer review process for medical decision analysis models.
Sonnenberg FA; Roberts MS; Tsevat J; Wong JB; Barry M; Kent DL
Med Care; 1994 Jul; 32(7 Suppl):JS52-64. PubMed ID: 8028413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. 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]
46. A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology.
Galipeau J; Moher D; Campbell C; Hendry P; Cameron DW; Palepu A; Hébert PC
J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Mar; 68(3):257-65. PubMed ID: 25510373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. 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]
48. Peer review of the quality of care. Reliability and sources of variability for outcome and process assessments.
Smith MA; Atherly AJ; Kane RL; Pacala JT
JAMA; 1997 Nov; 278(19):1573-8. PubMed ID: 9370502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.
Vintzileos AM; Ananth CV; Odibo AO; Chauhan SP; Smulian JC; Oyelese Y
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):703.e1-5. PubMed ID: 24983685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript.
Provenzale JM; Stanley RJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Oct; 185(4):848-54. PubMed ID: 16177399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Peer Review of a Manuscript Submission: A How-To Guide for Effective and Efficient Commentary.
Allen LA; Ho PM
Circ Heart Fail; 2017 Dec; 10(12):. PubMed ID: 29237709
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. How to evaluate a manuscript for publication?
Rostami K; Khadjooi K; Abasaeed-Elhag R; Ishaq S
Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench; 2011; 4(2):58-62. PubMed ID: 24834158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. [Guide for peer reviewers of scientific article].
Marusić M; Sambunjak D; Marusić A
Lijec Vjesn; 2005; 127(5-6):107-11. PubMed ID: 16281469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Evaluating quality of care: the role of peer review.
Harris CD; Bratzler DW
J Okla State Med Assoc; 2013 Jul; 106(7):279, 281-4. PubMed ID: 24032253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. 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]
56. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial.
van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):234-7. PubMed ID: 9676666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Characteristics of peer reviewed clinical medicine journals.
Eldredge J
Med Ref Serv Q; 1999; 18(2):13-26. PubMed ID: 10557841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Profiling quality of care: Is there a role for peer review?
Hofer TP; Asch SM; Hayward RA; Rubenstein LV; Hogan MM; Adams J; Kerr EA
BMC Health Serv Res; 2004 May; 4(1):9. PubMed ID: 15151701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Peer case review sharpens event analysis.
Hitchings KS; Davies-Hathen N; Capuano TA; Morgan G; Bendekovits R
J Nurs Care Qual; 2008; 23(4):296-304. PubMed ID: 18528303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Manuscript peer review at the AJR: facts, figures, and quality assessment.
Friedman DP
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Apr; 164(4):1007-9. PubMed ID: 7726010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
