134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18450323)
1. Does double-blind review benefit female authors?
Webb TJ; O'Hara B; Freckleton RP
Trends Ecol Evol; 2008 Jul; 23(7):351-3; author reply 353-4. PubMed ID: 18450323
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.
Budden AE; Tregenza T; Aarssen LW; Koricheva J; Leimu R; Lortie CJ
Trends Ecol Evol; 2008 Jan; 23(1):4-6. PubMed ID: 17963996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Working double-blind.
Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7179):605-6. PubMed ID: 18256621
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Use of double-blind peer review to increase author diversity.
Darling ES
Conserv Biol; 2015 Feb; 29(1):297-9. PubMed ID: 25039807
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
Naqvi KR
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322504
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Double-blind review: easy to guess in specialist fields.
Lane D
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322503
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Authors urged to come clean on competing interests.
Knight J
Nature; 2004 Jul; 430(6997):280. PubMed ID: 15254501
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Responsibilities of the editor.
Punjabi PP
Perfusion; 2010 May; 25(3):113-4. PubMed ID: 20581024
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Responding to peer reviews: pointers that authors don't learn in school.
Algase DL
Res Theory Nurs Pract; 2008; 22(4):219-21. PubMed ID: 19093658
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Reviewers support blinding in peer review.
Tierney AJ
J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):113. PubMed ID: 18990091
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. In praise of peer reviewers and the peer review process.
Peternelj-Taylor C
J Forensic Nurs; 2010; 6(4):159-61. PubMed ID: 21114756
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Ratings games.
Nature; 2005 Aug; 436(7053):889-90. PubMed ID: 16107794
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. [Lessons learned from the coxibs' ups and downs. The journals must be tougher against referees and authors].
Milerad J
Lakartidningen; 2008 May 21-27; 105(21):1560-1. PubMed ID: 18574991
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Peer review. Suggesting or excluding reviewers can help get your paper published.
Grimm D
Science; 2005 Sep; 309(5743):1974. PubMed ID: 16179438
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. [Authorship and co-authorship].
Haug C
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2006 Feb; 126(4):429. PubMed ID: 16477275
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. [Authors should know who reviewed their articles].
Sonnsjö B
Lakartidningen; 2005 Aug 22-28; 102(34):2333. PubMed ID: 16167638
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. [Authors should know who reviewed their articles].
Johansson BH
Lakartidningen; 2005 Jul 11-24; 102(28-29):2094; author reply 2094. PubMed ID: 16097188
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Upgrading our instructions for authors.
Schriger DL; Wears RL; Cooper RJ; Callaham ML
Ann Emerg Med; 2003 Apr; 41(4):565-7. PubMed ID: 12658258
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes.
Fox MF
J Higher Educ; 1994; 65(3):298-309. PubMed ID: 11653366
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Geriatrics editorial policy on disclosures.
Sherman FT; Radak JT
Geriatrics; 2006 Sep; 61(9):6. PubMed ID: 16989541
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
