2607 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17894854)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal.
Turcotte C; Drolet P; Girard M
Can J Anaesth; 2004; 51(6):549-56. PubMed ID: 15197116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Advertising in dermatology journals: journals' and journal editors' policies, practices, and attitudes.
Bartus CL; Katz KA
J Am Acad Dermatol; 2006 Jul; 55(1):116-22. PubMed ID: 16781302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey.
Wager E; Fiack S; Graf C; Robinson A; Rowlands I
J Med Ethics; 2009 Jun; 35(6):348-53. PubMed ID: 19482976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication.
Williams HC
J Am Acad Dermatol; 2004 Jul; 51(1):79-83. PubMed ID: 15243528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. [How strict should editors be? Nothing is done for the sake of errors].
Eklund J
Lakartidningen; 2004 Dec; 101(51-52):4250. PubMed ID: 15658596
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. [Improving the editing of medical journals and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)].
Reyes H; Kauffmann R; Andresen M
Rev Med Chil; 1997 Nov; 125(11):1289-91. PubMed ID: 9609048
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychiatry journals: what editors and reviewers want authors to know.
Harris AH; Reeder R; Hyun JK
J Psychiatr Res; 2009 Oct; 43(15):1231-4. PubMed ID: 19435635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?
Gilbert JR; Williams ES; Lundberg GD
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):139-42. PubMed ID: 8015126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals.
Luty J; Arokiadass SM; Easow JM; Anapreddy JR
J Med Ethics; 2009 Mar; 35(3):200-2. PubMed ID: 19251974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [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]
18. [Freedom of expression and editorial independence: Four firings and a Kafkanian process].
Gøtzsche PC
Ugeskr Laeger; 2008 Apr; 170(18):1537-8. PubMed ID: 18454921
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. [The medical literature stands to gain from critical appraisal. Commercialism and non-contextualized results under scrutiny].
Werkö L
Lakartidningen; 2002 Dec; 99(51-52):5172-5. PubMed ID: 12572312
[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]
