139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16111059)
21. Parasitology thanks the Referees of 2011.
Phillips S
Parasitology; 2012 Jun; 139(7):825. PubMed ID: 22640992
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. The new peer review.
Kohane IS; Altman RB
Proc AMIA Symp; 2000; ():433-7. PubMed ID: 11079920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Impact factors reward and promote excellence.
Lomnicki A
Nature; 2003 Jul; 424(6948):487. PubMed ID: 12891329
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Learning to review.
Freedman R
J Clin Psychiatry; 2009 Nov; 70(11):1599-600. PubMed ID: 20031100
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation.
Wagner AK; Boninger ML; Levy C; Chan L; Gater D; Kirby RL
Am J Phys Med Rehabil; 2003 Oct; 82(10):790-802. PubMed ID: 14508411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Double-blinded manuscript review: Avoiding peer review bias.
Santos A; Morris DS; Rattan R; Zakrison T
J Trauma Acute Care Surg; 2021 Jul; 91(1):e39-e42. PubMed ID: 33901050
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. The system rewards a dishonest approach.
Brookfield J
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774095
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Peer reviews: in praise of referees.
Altschuler EL
Nature; 2011 May; 473(7348):452. PubMed ID: 21614062
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Peer review and refereeing in science.
Lore W
East Afr Med J; 1995 May; 72(5):335-7. PubMed ID: 7555893
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Structure and format of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts.
Manske PR
J Hand Surg Am; 2006 Sep; 31(7):1051-5. PubMed ID: 16945702
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Discourse among referees and editors would help.
Lahiri DK
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482130
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. I think autophagy controls the death of my cells: what do I do to get my paper published?
Thorburn A
Autophagy; 2011 May; 7(5):455-6. PubMed ID: 21270514
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Integrity of the peer review process.
Smith ER
Can J Cardiol; 2000 Jun; 16(6):814. PubMed ID: 10863172
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Peer review: "a critique of the critics".
Andersson KE
J Urol; 2011 Sep; 186(3):777-8. PubMed ID: 21788036
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. A look inside the Pharos review process.
Harris ED
Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc; 2003; 66(2):36-7. PubMed ID: 12838637
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. The peer review process II: to review and be reviewed.
Riss P
Int Urogynecol J; 2012 May; 23(5):513-4. PubMed ID: 21901437
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. [Selected summaries].
Müller-Lissner S
Z Gastroenterol; 2011 Jul; 49(12):1525. PubMed ID: 22139874
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. [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]
39. 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]
40. Receiving feedback from reviewers: how to make the most of criticism.
Koop PM
Can Oncol Nurs J; 1999; 9(4):148-50. PubMed ID: 10786470
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
