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.
184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16164505)
1. 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]
2. Hazards and respect: revisiting commentary, scholarship and argument in our field of persons. Tilley S J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs; 2012 Dec; 19(10):939-49. PubMed ID: 23126404 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. How does peer review work? Aaron L Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. [The manuscripts' review process in Revista Médica de Chile and its peer-reviewers during the year 2012]. Reyes B H; Andresen H M; Palma H J Rev Med Chil; 2013 Jul; 141(7):903-8. PubMed ID: 24356739 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Getting to know you: performance articles and the peer review process. Grant A J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs; 2011 Nov; 18(9):833-6. PubMed ID: 21985686 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Training and experience of peer reviewers: an additional variable to consider. Kulstad E PLoS Med; 2007 Mar; 4(3):e143; author reply e145. PubMed ID: 17388681 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Reducing the costs of peer review. Nat Neurosci; 2008 Apr; 11(4):375. PubMed ID: 18368038 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Peer review under the microscope: an editor's view. Chan DL J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio); 2011 Oct; 21(5):453-7. PubMed ID: 22316192 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Editorial misconduct. Smith R BMJ; 2003 Jun; 326(7401):1224-5. PubMed ID: 12791712 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Increasing challenges for an effective peer-review process. Hak DJ; Giannoudis P; Mauffrey C Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol; 2016 Feb; 26(2):117-8. PubMed ID: 26724808 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Training and experience of peer reviewers: is being a "good reviewer" a persistent quality? García-Doval I PLoS Med; 2007 Mar; 4(3):e144; author reply e145. PubMed ID: 17388682 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Hwang case review committee misses the mark. Rossner M J Cell Biol; 2007 Jan; 176(2):131-2. PubMed ID: 17210952 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]