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.
1519 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12035133)
1. Peer review in a small and a big medical journal: case study of the Croatian Medical Journal and the Lancet. Marusić A; Lukić IK; Marusić M; McNamee D; Sharp D; Horton R Croat Med J; 2002 Jun; 43(3):286-9. PubMed ID: 12035133 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts. Enquselassie F Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? Kravitz RL; Franks P; Feldman MD; Gerrity M; Byrne C; Tierney WM PLoS One; 2010 Apr; 5(4):e10072. PubMed ID: 20386704 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Rothwell PM; Martyn CN Brain; 2000 Sep; 123 ( Pt 9)():1964-9. PubMed ID: 10960059 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition. Cejas C AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1181-1184. PubMed ID: 28350482 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Peer review and editorial decision-making. Howard L; Wilkinson G Br J Psychiatry; 1998 Aug; 173():110-3; discussion 114-5. PubMed ID: 9850221 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. A peek behind the curtain: peer review and editorial decision making at Stroke. Sposato LA; Ovbiagele B; Johnston SC; Fisher M; Saposnik G; Ann Neurol; 2014 Aug; 76(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 25043350 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003. Liesegang TJ; Shaikh M; Crook JE Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Apr; 143(4):551-60. PubMed ID: 17276380 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. Lee KP; Boyd EA; Holroyd-Leduc JM; Bacchetti P; Bero LA Med J Aust; 2006 Jun; 184(12):621-6. PubMed ID: 16803442 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-reviewed journals in 2012. Lamb CR; Adams CA Equine Vet J; 2015 Nov; 47(6):736-40. PubMed ID: 25302854 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]