471 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18657498)
1. Perceived journal quality: an indicator of research quality.
Fahy K; Fenwick J
Women Birth; 2008 Sep; 21(3):97-8. PubMed ID: 18657498
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The development of a ranking tool for refereed journals in which nursing and midwifery researchers publish their work.
Crookes PA; Reis SL; Jones SC
Nurse Educ Today; 2010 Jul; 30(5):420-7. PubMed ID: 19906469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Peer review and the nursing literature.
Dougherty MC
Nurs Res; 2009; 58(2):73. PubMed ID: 19289927
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Consider the source.
Mason DJ
Am J Nurs; 2009 Apr; 109(4):7. PubMed ID: 19325281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. [Advice for authors. Four principal reasons for manuscript rejection].
Clarke SP
Perspect Infirm; 2006; 3(3):35-9. PubMed ID: 16480058
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
Kennedy MS
Am J Nurs; 2009 Dec; 109(12):7. PubMed ID: 19935148
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Publication ethics.
Hays JC
Public Health Nurs; 2009; 26(3):205-6. PubMed ID: 19386055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Stewards of the discipline: The role of referees and peer review.
Broome ME
Nurs Outlook; 2010; 58(4):169-70. PubMed ID: 20637926
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. The role of editors, reviewers and authors in improving the journal quality.
Bugiardini R
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown); 2011 Jan; 12(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 21263233
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. A rose by any other name is still a rose: assessing journal quality.
Broome ME
Nurs Outlook; 2007; 55(4):163-4. PubMed ID: 17678678
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors.
Newton DP
Account Res; 2010 May; 17(3):130-45. PubMed ID: 20461569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Commentary on Long T, Fallon, D (2007) Ethics approval, guarantees of quality and the meddlesome editor. Journal of Clinical Nursing 16, 1398-1404.
Watson R
J Clin Nurs; 2008 Jun; 17(11):1534-5. PubMed ID: 18482151
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Scientific letters.
Henly SJ
Nurs Res; 2008; 57(5):301. PubMed ID: 18794713
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry editorial policies and ethical guidelines.
Roth KA
J Histochem Cytochem; 2006 Feb; 54(2):129-30. PubMed ID: 16418501
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Recent changes in research ethics guidelines and publication.
Leslie GD
Aust Crit Care; 2008 May; 21(2):81-2. PubMed ID: 18466826
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Publishing and getting published.
Gardner G
Collegian; 2003 Jan; 10(1):4-5. PubMed ID: 15534956
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. [Investigation of scientific fraud. Statements from the Swedish Research Council not sufficiently normative].
Werkö L
Lakartidningen; 2006 Oct 25-31; 103(43):3288-91. PubMed ID: 17117661
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
