208 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12705110)
1. An open letter to WJNR reviewers.
Brink PJ
West J Nurs Res; 2003 Apr; 25(3):247-50. PubMed ID: 12705110
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Ensuring the quality of peer-review process.
Afifi M
Saudi Med J; 2006 Aug; 27(8):1253. PubMed ID: 16883466
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Why your manuscript was rejected and how to prevent it.
Dogra S
Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol; 2011; 77(2):123-7. PubMed ID: 21393939
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Taking a peek into the editor's office.
Nat Cell Biol; 2018 Oct; 20(10):1101. PubMed ID: 30258125
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Data publishing and scientific journals: the future of the scientific paper in a world of shared data.
De Schutter E
Neuroinformatics; 2010 Oct; 8(3):151-3. PubMed ID: 20835853
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The need to improve the quality of scientific manuscripts published in Nigerian biomedical journals.
Laabes EP; Glew RH
West Afr J Med; 2007; 26(2):160. PubMed ID: 17939322
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Reviewers' reports should in turn be peer reviewed.
List A
Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7098):26. PubMed ID: 16823432
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Truth in Science Publishing: A Personal Perspective.
Südhof TC
PLoS Biol; 2016 Aug; 14(8):e1002547. PubMed ID: 27564858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The matter of standards. III. The editorial process.
Wilkins AS
Bioessays; 2008 Nov; 30(11-12):1037-9. PubMed ID: 18937297
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Submission of scientifically sound and ethical manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals - a reviewer's personal perspective on bioanalytical publications.
Weng N
Biomed Chromatogr; 2012 Nov; 26(11):1457-60. PubMed ID: 22987619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Debate on peer review. Report from an international congress on peer review].
Grimby G
Lakartidningen; 2002 Jul; 99(30-31):3109-10. PubMed ID: 12198929
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review.
Haffar S; Bazerbachi F; Murad MH
Mayo Clin Proc; 2019 Apr; 94(4):670-676. PubMed ID: 30797567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system.
Stahel PF; Moore EE
BMC Med; 2014 Sep; 12():179. PubMed ID: 25270270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Scientific reporting guidelines].
Nylenna M
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2009 Nov; 129(22):2340. PubMed ID: 19935931
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Journals should set a new standard in transparency.
Dellavalle RP; Lundahl K; Freeman SR; Schilling LM
Nature; 2007 Jan; 445(7126):364. PubMed ID: 17251958
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Comments on European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications.
Foote M; Hamilton CW; Mallia-Hughes M
Curr Med Res Opin; 2005 May; 21(5):703-4; author reply 704. PubMed ID: 15969869
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process.
Giles J
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):252. PubMed ID: 16421533
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Rewarding the quantity of peer review could harm biomedical research.
Al-Khatib A; Teixeira da Silva JA
Biochem Med (Zagreb); 2019 Jun; 29(2):020201. PubMed ID: 31015781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. How to write a paper: revising your manuscript.
Su'a B; MacFater WS; Hill AG
ANZ J Surg; 2017 Mar; 87(3):195-197. PubMed ID: 27905185
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
