146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15202567)
1. Reviewing in science requires quality criteria and professional reviewers.
Jurkat-Rott K; Lehmann-Horn F
Eur J Cell Biol; 2004 Apr; 83(3):93-5. PubMed ID: 15202567
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. [Peer review: a closed system in need of reform].
Thörn A
Lakartidningen; 2002 Jul; 99(30-31):3106-8. PubMed ID: 12198928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Tips for manuscript reviewers.
Davidhizar R; Bechtel GA
Nurse Author Ed; 2003; 13(3):1-4. PubMed ID: 12841086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [External and unbiased quality assurance of scientific manuscripts].
Nilsson BI
Lakartidningen; 2002 Nov; 99(45):4568-9. PubMed ID: 12469534
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. [Peer review of scientific manuscripts should be open and referees' bias should be accounted for].
Thörn A
Lakartidningen; 2004 Oct; 101(44):3458. PubMed ID: 15560663
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Reviewing manuscripts: tips and responsibilities.
Heddle NM; Ness PM
Transfusion; 2009 Nov; 49(11):2265-8. PubMed ID: 19761546
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Striving for a more perfect peer review: editors confront strengths, flaws of biomedical literature.
Kuehn BM
JAMA; 2013 Nov; 310(17):1781-3. PubMed ID: 24193063
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. [How strict should editors be? Nothing is done for the sake of errors].
Eklund J
Lakartidningen; 2004 Dec; 101(51-52):4250. PubMed ID: 15658596
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. The examination of peer review and publication in neurology.
Wong VS
J Child Neurol; 2010 Oct; 25(10):1298-301. PubMed ID: 20606060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. NIH revises rules of conflict of interest of grant peer reviewers.
Shalev M
Lab Anim (NY); 2004 Mar; 33(3):15-6. PubMed ID: 15235618
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. [Some hints about the reviewers' ethical dilemmas].
Rumboldt Z
Acta Med Croatica; 2008 Dec; 62(5):443-6. PubMed ID: 19382625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Ethics of guidelines for reviewers of medical manuscripts.
Minion D; Sorial E; Endean E
J Vasc Surg; 2007 Aug; 46(2):391-3. PubMed ID: 17664118
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Developing and evaluating criteria to help reviewers of biomedical informatics manuscripts.
Ammenwerth E; Wolff AC; Knaup P; Ulmer H; Skonetzki S; van Bemmel JH; McCray AT; Haux R; Kulikowski C
J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2003; 10(5):512-4. PubMed ID: 12807814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. On ethical peer review and publication: the importance of professional conduct and communication.
Spear HJ
Nurse Author Ed; 2004; 14(4):1-3. PubMed ID: 15551686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [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]
17. Peer review: the best of the blemished?
Alpert JS
Am J Med; 2007 Apr; 120(4):287-8. PubMed ID: 17398217
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. [Freedom of expression and editorial independence: Four firings and a Kafkanian process].
Gøtzsche PC
Ugeskr Laeger; 2008 Apr; 170(18):1537-8. PubMed ID: 18454921
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. A rebuttal: secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research.
McLaughlin JK; Boice JD; Tarone RE; Blot WJ
Am J Ind Med; 2007 Mar; 50(3):235-6. PubMed ID: 17187382
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
