162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17214946)
1. [How to make out misuse of statistics in manuscripts or papers quickly and accurately].
Hu LP; Liu HG
Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao; 2007 Jan; 5(1):97-100. PubMed ID: 17214946
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. ERJ peer reviewers: does this pillar of the Journal's quality need help?
Migliori GB; Soriano JB; Brusasco V; Dinh-Xuan AT
Eur Respir J; 2011 Aug; 38(2):251-2. PubMed ID: 22741165
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Enhancements in peer review of manuscripts by the Journal.
Liesegang TJ
Am J Ophthalmol; 2014 Jul; 158(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 24929824
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Landmark, landmine, or landfill? The role of peer review in assessing manuscripts.
Balistreri WF
J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):107-8. PubMed ID: 17643754
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. More than 1000 new manuscripts in 2017.
Glimelius B
Acta Oncol; 2018 Feb; 57(2):174-175. PubMed ID: 29303398
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The discourteous reviewer.
Leviton A
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 2007 Jan; 21(1):2-4. PubMed ID: 17239173
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Open access under scrutiny.
Samkange-Zeeb F; Zeeb H
J Radiol Prot; 2013 Dec; 33(4):885-6. PubMed ID: 24285443
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Editors' clubs benefit researchers and trainees.
Catania EH; Seale KT
Dis Model Mech; 2009; 2(1-2):7. PubMed ID: 19132110
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. When papers go bad--part 1, by Caveman.
J Cell Sci; 2004 Dec; 117(Pt 25):5953-4. PubMed ID: 15678575
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Quality of scientific articles.
Szklo M
Rev Saude Publica; 2006 Aug; 40 Spec no.():30-5. PubMed ID: 16924300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Publishing opportunities for nurses: a comparison of 92 U.S. journals.
Swanson EA; McCloskey JC; Bodensteiner A
Image J Nurs Sch; 1991; 23(1):33-8. PubMed ID: 2022386
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Peer review of biomedical manuscripts: an update.
Ludbrook J
J Clin Neurosci; 2003 Sep; 10(5):540-2. PubMed ID: 12948455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Our editing work and analysis of peer review in 1994-98].
Loría A; Lisker R
Rev Invest Clin; 2000; 52(1):52-9. PubMed ID: 10818811
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Changes in the ethos of medical publications as reflected in progressive alterations in the uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals (1979-2008).
Kojima T; Barron JP
Chest; 2010 Jun; 137(6):1479-82. PubMed ID: 20525661
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Peer Review of Scholarly Work.
Brandon D; McGrath JM
Adv Neonatal Care; 2018 Dec; 18(6):423-424. PubMed ID: 30499821
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. What do journal editors want? … and everything you wanted to know about the peer review process for journal publication.
Muir-Cochrane E
Nurs Health Sci; 2013 Sep; 15(3):263-4. PubMed ID: 24021114
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The Art of Peer Review.
Fraser D
Neonatal Netw; 2018 Jul; 37(4):195-196. PubMed ID: 30567915
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Peer review and the fate of manuscripts.
Frey JJ
Fam Med; 1985; 17(1):3. PubMed ID: 3843084
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Perfecting peer review?
Nat Med; 2011 Jan; 17(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 21217648
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. How does peer review work?
Aaron L
Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
