206 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16925632)
1. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.
Regehr G; Bordage G
Med Educ; 2006 Sep; 40(9):832-9. PubMed ID: 16925632
[TBL] [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. Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.
Jagsi R; Bennett KE; Griffith KA; DeCastro R; Grace C; Holliday E; Zietman AL
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Aug; 89(5):940-946. PubMed ID: 25035195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.
Chung KC; Shauver MJ; Malay S; Zhong L; Weinstein A; Rohrich RJ
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2015 Dec; 136(6):1369-1377. PubMed ID: 26273735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial.
van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):234-7. PubMed ID: 9676666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives.
Bunner C; Larson EL
Am J Infect Control; 2012 Oct; 40(8):701-4. PubMed ID: 23021414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.
Godlee F; Gale CR; Martyn CN
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):237-40. PubMed ID: 9676667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.
van Rooyen S; Delamothe T; Evans SJ
BMJ; 2010 Nov; 341():c5729. PubMed ID: 21081600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer.
Clark RK
Br Dent J; 2012 Aug; 213(4):153-4. PubMed ID: 22918342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.
O'Connor EE; Cousar M; Lentini JA; Castillo M; Halm K; Zeffiro TA
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol; 2017 Feb; 38(2):230-235. PubMed ID: 27856433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
McNutt RA; Evans AT; Fletcher RH; Fletcher SW
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1371-6. PubMed ID: 2304216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
