345 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12038910)
1. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials.
Callaham ML; Knopp RK; Gallagher EJ
JAMA; 2002 Jun; 287(21):2781-3. PubMed ID: 12038910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance.
Callaham ML; Wears RL; Waeckerle JF
Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Sep; 32(3 Pt 1):318-22. PubMed ID: 9737493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers.
Callaham ML; Schriger DL
Ann Emerg Med; 2002 Sep; 40(3):323-8. PubMed ID: 12192358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Effect of revealing authors' conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial.
John LK; Loewenstein G; Marder A; Callaham ML
BMJ; 2019 Nov; 367():l5896. PubMed ID: 31694810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
[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. 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]
11. 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]
12. Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial.
Houry D; Green S; Callaham M
BMC Med Educ; 2012 Aug; 12():83. PubMed ID: 22928960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Training patients to review scientific reports for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: an observational study.
Ivlev I; Vander Ley KJ; Wiedrick J; Lesley K; Forester A; Webb R; Broitman M; Eden KB
BMJ Open; 2019 Sep; 9(9):e028732. PubMed ID: 31542741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Black N; Smith R
BMJ; 1999 Jan; 318(7175):23-7. PubMed ID: 9872878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.
Parikh LI; Benner RS; Riggs TW; Hazen N; Chescheir NC
Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Feb; 129(2):243-248. PubMed ID: 28079780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Manuscript Review at the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition: The Impact of Reviewers on Editor Decisions.
Kumar P; Ravindra A; Wang Y; Belli DC; Heyman MB; Gupta SK
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr; 2021 Nov; 73(5):567-571. PubMed ID: 34173794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
Black N; van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Smith R; Evans S
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):231-3. PubMed ID: 9676665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
