396 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17643754)
1. 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]
2. 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]
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. A reader and author respond to "The end of peer review and traditional publishing as we know it".
Jones V
Medscape J Med; 2009; 11(1):17; author reply 17. PubMed ID: 19295938
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
Eur Psychiatry; 2009 Mar; 24(2):69-70. PubMed ID: 19248983
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. How does peer review work?
Aaron L
Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531
[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. A reviewer's lot is not a happy one.
Raine CS
J Neuroimmunol; 2003 Aug; 141(1-2):1-2. PubMed ID: 12965247
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Would you buy a used car from this editor?
Nazarian LN
J Ultrasound Med; 2013 Jul; 32(7):1107-8. PubMed ID: 23804332
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The editorial process for medical journals: I. Introduction of a series and discussion of the responsibilities of editors, authors, and reviewers.
Liesegang TJ; Albert DM; Schachat AP; Minckler DS
Am J Ophthalmol; 2003 Jul; 136(1):109-13. PubMed ID: 12834678
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. New Year's Resolutions-New Year Reviewers-New Year of Review.
Woodruff TK
Endocrinology; 2019 Jan; 160(1):36-37. PubMed ID: 30551172
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. We are delighted to have received 273 replies from reviewers specifying their subspecialty interests. Introduction.
Frank JD; Mouriquand P; Caldamone A; Malone PS
J Pediatr Urol; 2012 Jun; 8(3):223. PubMed ID: 22583554
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Meeting our ethical obligations in medical publishing: responsibilities of editors, authors, and readers of peer-reviewed journals.
Albert DM; Liesegang TJ; Schachat AP
Arch Ophthalmol; 2005 May; 123(5):684-6. PubMed ID: 15883290
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Welcome Message from the New Editor-in-Chief.
Zemel MB
J Med Food; 2019 Mar; 22(3):229. PubMed ID: 30844320
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Biomedical Journals in India: some critical concerns.
Satyanarayana K; Sharma A
Indian J Med Res; 2010 Aug; 132():119-22. PubMed ID: 20716810
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. [Scientific reports: responsibility for quality].
Balzer K
Pflege; 2013 Dec; 26(6):383-5. PubMed ID: 24297827
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. [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]
18. Peer review in PLoS Medicine.
The
PLoS Med; 2007 Jan; 4(1):e58. PubMed ID: 17411325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Peer review: a castle built on sand or the bedrock of scientific publishing?
Berger E
Ann Emerg Med; 2006 Feb; 47(2):157-9. PubMed ID: 16435419
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Publication of RadioGraphics manuscripts: guidelines for authors and description of solicitation process and peer review.
Klein JS; Harmon SP;
Radiographics; 2012; 32(1):3-8. PubMed ID: 22236890
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
