322 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15853865)
1. Development of a case report review instrument.
Ramulu VG; Levine RB; Hebert RS; Wright SM
Int J Clin Pract; 2005 Apr; 59(4):457-61. PubMed ID: 15853865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument.
Landkroon AP; Euser AM; Veeken H; Hart W; Overbeke AJ
Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Oct; 108(4):979-85. PubMed ID: 17012462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance?
Weiner BK; Weiner JP; Smith HE
Spine J; 2010 Mar; 10(3):209-11. PubMed ID: 20207330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Armstrong AW; Idriss SZ; Kimball AB; Bernhard JD
J Am Acad Dermatol; 2008 Apr; 58(4):632-5. PubMed ID: 18249470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Scientific composition and review of manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals.
Bayne SC; McGivney GP; Mazer SC
J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):201-18. PubMed ID: 12616242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A method for assessing reflective journal writing.
Plack MM; Driscoll M; Blissett S; McKenna R; Plack TP
J Allied Health; 2005; 34(4):199-208. PubMed ID: 16529182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Development of a quality assessment scale for retrospective clinical studies in pediatric surgery.
Rangel SJ; Kelsey J; Colby CE; Anderson J; Moss RL
J Pediatr Surg; 2003 Mar; 38(3):390-6; discussion 390-6. PubMed ID: 12632355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Statistical reviewing policies in dermatology journals: results of a questionnaire survey of editors.
Katz KA; Crawford GH; Lu DW; Kantor J; Margolis DJ
J Am Acad Dermatol; 2004 Aug; 51(2):234-40. PubMed ID: 15280842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
Henly SJ; Dougherty MC
Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 19150263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Processing a manuscript submitted to a medical journal.
Cavaliere F; Antonelli M
Minerva Anestesiol; 2009 Oct; 75(10):574-6. PubMed ID: 19088700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Problems faced by editors of peer reviewed medical journals.
Jawaid SA
Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S21-5. PubMed ID: 14968187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
Kearney MH; Freda MC
Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Revision of manuscripts for scholarly publication.
Dowd SB; McElveny C
Radiol Technol; 1997; 69(1):47-54. PubMed ID: 9323765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychiatry journals: what editors and reviewers want authors to know.
Harris AH; Reeder R; Hyun JK
J Psychiatr Res; 2009 Oct; 43(15):1231-4. PubMed ID: 19435635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
