124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18072166)
1. A review of the review process.
Dye L
J Med Toxicol; 2007 Dec; 3(4):143-5. PubMed ID: 18072166
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Getting Reviewed.
Pickler RH
Nurs Res; 2021 Jul-Aug 01; 70(4):237-238. PubMed ID: 34160181
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. [The process of external peer review of manuscripts submitted for publication to Enfermería Clínica].
Moreno-Casbas T; Fuentelsaz-Gallego C; Ruzafa-Martínez M; Puigblanqué-Reyes E
Enferm Clin; 2008; 18(5):229-31. PubMed ID: 18840330
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. [More rigorous requirements of openness concerning clinical trials. Only manuscripts with all data freely accessible to researchers will be accepted by leading medical journals].
Milerad J
Lakartidningen; 2001 Oct; 98(43):4692. PubMed ID: 11715243
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Structure and format of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts.
Manske PR
J Hand Surg Am; 2006 Sep; 31(7):1051-5. PubMed ID: 16945702
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Publishing coronavirology: Peering into peer(less?) review.
Pederson T
FASEB J; 2020 Aug; 34(8):9825-9827. PubMed ID: 32803811
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The review process.
Lambert CE
Nurs Health Sci; 2002 Dec; 4(4):139-40. PubMed ID: 12406199
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process.
Giles J
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):252. PubMed ID: 16421533
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The need to improve the quality of scientific manuscripts published in Nigerian biomedical journals.
Laabes EP; Glew RH
West Afr J Med; 2007; 26(2):160. PubMed ID: 17939322
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Additional statements from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
CMAJ; 1995 May; 152(10):1647-55. PubMed ID: 7743450
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Anatomy of Constructive Peer Review.
Horner RD; Lines LM
Med Care; 2019 Jun; 57(6):399-400. PubMed ID: 31095526
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Journals: how to decide what's worth publishing.
Jefferson T; Shashok K
Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):209-10. PubMed ID: 12529609
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Peer review and refereeing in science.
Lore W
East Afr Med J; 1995 May; 72(5):335-7. PubMed ID: 7555893
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
Croat Med J; 2003 Dec; 44(6):770-83. PubMed ID: 14725274
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Peer review should continue after publication.
Liesegang TJ
Am J Ophthalmol; 2010 Mar; 149(3):359-60. PubMed ID: 20172061
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Peer reviews. A peer reviewer's view.
Welsby PD
Postgrad Med J; 2020 Dec; 96(1142):725-727. PubMed ID: 32943475
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Approach to manuscript preparation and submission: how to get your paper accepted.
Kern MJ; Bonneau HN
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2003 Mar; 58(3):391-6. PubMed ID: 12594709
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
