186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12057181)
1. [Quality of manuscript evaluation in Gaceta Sanitaria].
García AM; Plasència A; Fernández E
Gac Sanit; 2002; 16(3):244-9. PubMed ID: 12057181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development.
Janke KK; Bzowyckyj AS; Traynor AP
Am J Pharm Educ; 2017 May; 81(4):73. PubMed ID: 28630514
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts.
van Rooyen S; Black N; Godlee F
J Clin Epidemiol; 1999 Jul; 52(7):625-9. PubMed ID: 10391655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports.
Bordage G
Acad Med; 2001 Sep; 76(9):889-96. PubMed ID: 11553504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine.
Goodman SN; Berlin J; Fletcher SW; Fletcher RH
Ann Intern Med; 1994 Jul; 121(1):11-21. PubMed ID: 8198342
[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. 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]
10. 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]
11. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
Snell L; Spencer J
Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Online survey of nursing journal peer reviewers: indicators of quality in manuscripts.
Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome M
West J Nurs Res; 2011 Jun; 33(4):506-21. PubMed ID: 21078915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Structured peer review: pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals.
Malički M; Mehmani B
PeerJ; 2024; 12():e17514. PubMed ID: 38948202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Preserving blind peer review of electronic manuscript files.
Jacobson AF; Schmidt K; Coeling H
Nurse Author Ed; 2005; 15(1):1-4, 7. PubMed ID: 15739759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Decline to Review a Manuscript: Insight and Implications for
Raniga SB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Apr; 214(4):723-726. PubMed ID: 31967499
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
