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.
130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15629160)
21. 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]
22. The manuscript review process of nursing journals. Swanson E; McCloskey JC Image (IN); 1982 Oct; 14(3):72-6. PubMed ID: 6922826 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. How would you recognise a good review? Perkins D Aust J Rural Health; 2014 Aug; 22(4):143-4. PubMed ID: 25123615 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Problems with peer review and alternatives. Smith R Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1988 Mar; 296(6624):774-7. PubMed ID: 3126969 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Information for peer reviewers. Huston P CMAJ; 1994 Apr; 150(8):1211-22. PubMed ID: 8162544 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. The art of peer review. Oumeish OY Skinmed; 2008; 7(1):8-9. PubMed ID: 18174795 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? Yankauer A JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1338-40. PubMed ID: 2304210 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Am I flogging a dead metaphor? Sloppy scholarship and the implied spider. McKenzie R J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs; 2005 Oct; 12(5):550-5. PubMed ID: 16164505 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. [The review process, from manuscript to paper]. van Harten PN Tijdschr Psychiatr; 2008; 50(1):3-7. PubMed ID: 18188822 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Standing up for the professionalism of peer reviewers of plastic surgery manuscripts. Prado A; Andrades P Plast Reconstr Surg; 2009 Dec; 124(6):2185-2186. PubMed ID: 19952679 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Peer review: Credit where credit is due. Marr CM Equine Vet J; 2018 Jan; 50(1):5-6. PubMed ID: 29193296 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Our editorial process--some experiences and reflections. Emmelin M; Wall S Scand J Public Health; 2003; 31(3):161-8. PubMed ID: 12850969 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Celebrating 20 Years of the Journal of Insect Science and Introducing More Equitable Peer Review. Weintraub PG J Insect Sci; 2021 Jan; 21(1):. PubMed ID: 33394046 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Integrity of this journal. Perel ML Implant Dent; 2015 Apr; 24(2):131. PubMed ID: 25706265 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Celebrating the quality of our referees. Forsythe ID J Physiol; 2017 Oct; 595(20):6369-6370. PubMed ID: 28884466 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Implementation of a journal peer reviewer stratification system based on quality and reliability. Green SM; Callaham ML Ann Emerg Med; 2011 Feb; 57(2):149-152.e4. PubMed ID: 20947204 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]