187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12057181)
21. 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]
22. Perceived value of providing peer reviewers with abstracts and preprints of related published and unpublished papers.
Hatch CL; Goodman SN
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):273-4. PubMed ID: 9676679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts.
Garfunkel JM; Lawson EE; Hamrick HJ; Ulshen MH
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1376-8. PubMed ID: 2304217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. 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]
27. [A guide to the peer review of scientific papers].
Giunta RE; Prommersberger KJ
Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir; 2012 Aug; 44(4):193-7. PubMed ID: 22836956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Author perception of peer review.
Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR
Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; Provenzale JM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Dec; 183(6):1545-50. PubMed ID: 15547189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal.
Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC
Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Suggestions for reviewing manuscripts.
Alexandrov AV; Hennerici MG; Norrving B
Cerebrovasc Dis; 2009; 28(3):243-6. PubMed ID: 19602875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Ethical issues in studying submissions to a medical journal.
Olson CM; Glass RM; Thacker SB; Stroup DF
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):290-1. PubMed ID: 9676686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. 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]
35. JACLP Guide for Manuscript Peer Review: How to Perform a Peer Review and How to Be Responsive to Reviewer Comments.
Oldham MA; Kontos N; Baller E; Cerimele JM
J Acad Consult Liaison Psychiatry; 2023; 64(5):468-472. PubMed ID: 36796760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.
Evans AT; McNutt RA; Fletcher SW; Fletcher RH
J Gen Intern Med; 1993 Aug; 8(8):422-8. PubMed ID: 8410407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals.
Azer SA; Ramani S; Peterson R
Med Teach; 2012; 34(9):698-704. PubMed ID: 22643022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. [Gaceta Sanitaria in 2017. Improving the quality of our journal].
Bermúdez-Tamayo C; Hernández MN; Alguacil J; Vozmediano EB; Cantarero D; Portiño MC; Casino G; Sánchez EC; Calvente MG; Zapata LIG; Epstein D; Hernan M; Linares C; García LP; Cantero MTR; Segura A; Zunzunegui MV; Sarria A; Peiro R; Alvarez-Dardet C
Gac Sanit; 2018; 32(2):117-120. PubMed ID: 29506665
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
