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.
85 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16843195)
1. An open letter to reviewers (or to anyone whose solicited recommendation has not been followed). DeMaria AN J Am Coll Cardiol; 2006 Jul; 48(2):409-10. PubMed ID: 16843195 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Survey of conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of ophthalmology journals. Anraku A; Jin YP; Trope GE; Buys YM Ophthalmology; 2009 Jun; 116(6):1093-6. PubMed ID: 19376583 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Of editors and dilemmas. DeMaria AN J Am Coll Cardiol; 2007 Oct; 50(16):1610-1. PubMed ID: 17936163 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Reviewers support blinding in peer review. Tierney AJ J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):113. PubMed ID: 18990091 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Decision making is an important aspect of health communication research. Broome M; Farrell M; Visser A Patient Educ Couns; 2010 Sep; 80(3):285-7. PubMed ID: 20691555 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Peer review and scientific misconduct: bad authors and trusting reviewers. Malay DS J Foot Ankle Surg; 2009; 48(3):283-4. PubMed ID: 19423027 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Prepublication review of medical ethics research: cause for concern. Landy DC; Coverdale JH; McCullough LB; Sharp RR Acad Med; 2009 Apr; 84(4):495-7. PubMed ID: 19318788 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal. Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A letter of rejection. Flowers KR J Hand Ther; 2006; 19(4):383. PubMed ID: 17056397 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial. Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Making the best of an unappealing situation. Nat Struct Mol Biol; 2006 Nov; 13(11):947. PubMed ID: 17082785 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. On editorial practice and peer review. Shahar E J Eval Clin Pract; 2007 Aug; 13(4):699-701. PubMed ID: 17683318 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. What do the JAMA editors say when they discuss manuscripts that they are considering for publication? Developing a schema for classifying the content of editorial discussion. Dickersin K; Ssemanda E; Mansell C; Rennie D BMC Med Res Methodol; 2007 Sep; 7():44. PubMed ID: 17894854 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Peer review as professional responsibility: a quality control system only as good as the participants. Grainger DW Biomaterials; 2007 Dec; 28(34):5199-203. PubMed ID: 17643484 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]