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.
141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12189632)
1. Commentary on Cicchetti's "reliability of peer review". Colliver JA Teach Learn Med; 2002; 14(3):142-3. PubMed ID: 12189632 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Analysis of three factors possibly influencing the outcome of a science review process. Araujo J; Ghiya ND; Calugar A; Popovic T Account Res; 2014; 21(4):241-64. PubMed ID: 24422703 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. "Outing" peer review: medical editors scrutinize the value of secrecy. Vanchieri C J Natl Cancer Inst; 1997 Nov; 89(21):1568-9. PubMed ID: 9362150 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. [From the Cochrane Library: the use of peer review is still under discussion]. Stijntjes F; Veeken H Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2008 Apr; 152(16):934-7. PubMed ID: 18561790 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Thoughts of a manuscript reviewer. Bluestone N Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc; 1996; 59(3):14-8. PubMed ID: 9074317 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Lesson for science. Krowitz EJ Nature; 1991 Aug; 352(6338):751. PubMed ID: 1652690 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Peer review perspective for early career psychiatrists. Gelenberg AJ J Clin Psychiatry; 2009 Nov; 70(11):1599. PubMed ID: 20031101 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Commentary: new guidelines for NIH peer review: improving the system or undermining it? Spiegel AM Acad Med; 2010 May; 85(5):746-8. PubMed ID: 20520019 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Proposals for improving the Peer Review System of the National Institutes of Health. Kirschstein RL Clin Res; 1977 Dec; 25(5):295-6. PubMed ID: 10304717 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Funding should recognize the value of peer review. Dominiczak MH Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6919):111. PubMed ID: 12520276 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Politics and peer review. Magnus D Am J Bioeth; 2004; 4(1):7-8. PubMed ID: 15035920 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. [The "peer-review" process in biomedical journals: characteristics of "Elite" reviewers]. Alfonso F Neurologia; 2010; 25(9):521-9. PubMed ID: 21093700 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Good science and good peer reviewing: are they related? Cicchetti DV J Clin Exp Neuropsychol; 1998 Jun; 20(3):428-31. PubMed ID: 9845169 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Science behind reviewing. Marusic A J Pak Med Assoc; 2013 May; 63(5):656-8. PubMed ID: 23758003 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]