1353 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17444512)
1. 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]
2. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
Enquselassie F
Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
[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. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers.
Navalta JW; Lyons TS
Adv Physiol Educ; 2010 Dec; 34(4):170-3. PubMed ID: 21098383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Does online submission of manuscripts improve efficiency?
Govender P; Buckley O; McAuley G; O'Brien J; Torreggiani WC
JBR-BTR; 2008; 91(6):231-4. PubMed ID: 19202995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.
Etemadi A; Raiszadeh F; Alaeddini F; Azizi F
Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S29-33. PubMed ID: 14968189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Armstrong AW; Idriss SZ; Kimball AB; Bernhard JD
J Am Acad Dermatol; 2008 Apr; 58(4):632-5. PubMed ID: 18249470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Quality of medical journals with special reference to the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal.
Aly AM
Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S18-20. PubMed ID: 14968186
[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. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; Provenzale JM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Dec; 183(6):1545-50. PubMed ID: 15547189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
Earnshaw JJ; Farndon JR; Guillou PJ; Johnson CD; Murie JA; Murray GD
Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2000 Apr; 82(4 Suppl):133-5. PubMed ID: 10889776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Preserving blind peer review of electronic manuscript files.
Jacobson AF; Schmidt K; Coeling H
Nurse Author Ed; 2005; 15(1):1-4, 7. PubMed ID: 15739759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [The impact factor and editorial decisions].
Matías-Guiu J; García-Ramos R
Neurologia; 2008; 23(6):342-8. PubMed ID: 18597189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. [Report of the editors, 2010].
García Puig J; Alonso-Vega GG; Blanco JJ
Rev Clin Esp; 2011 Jan; 211(1):36-45. PubMed ID: 21216398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.
Kurihara Y; Colletti PM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Sep; 201(3):468-70. PubMed ID: 23971437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.
Vintzileos AM; Ananth CV; Odibo AO; Chauhan SP; Smulian JC; Oyelese Y
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):703.e1-5. PubMed ID: 24983685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
