343 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18990091)
1. Reviewers support blinding in peer review.
Tierney AJ
J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):113. PubMed ID: 18990091
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. [Double-blind peer review].
Fenyvesi T
Orv Hetil; 2002 Feb; 143(5):245-8. PubMed ID: 11875838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Working double-blind.
Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7179):605-6. PubMed ID: 18256621
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Rating reviewers.
Marchionini G
Science; 2008 Mar; 319(5868):1335-6. PubMed ID: 18323432
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. There's a time to be critical.
Nature; 2011 May; 473(7347):253. PubMed ID: 21593816
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Brain tumor and seizures: pathophysiology and its implications for treatment revisited (Epilepsia 2003; 44:1223-1232).
Schaller B
Epilepsia; 2006 Mar; 47(3):661; discussion 661. PubMed ID: 16529640
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. On editorial practice and peer review.
Shahar E
J Eval Clin Pract; 2007 Aug; 13(4):699-701. PubMed ID: 17683318
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.
Jagsi R; Bennett KE; Griffith KA; DeCastro R; Grace C; Holliday E; Zietman AL
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Aug; 89(5):940-946. PubMed ID: 25035195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Peer review. Editorial.
Kenyon G; Youngs R
J Laryngol Otol; 2009 Dec; 123(12):1299-300. PubMed ID: 19958561
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Consider the source.
Mason DJ
Am J Nurs; 2009 Apr; 109(4):7. PubMed ID: 19325281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. A gradual peer-review process.
Lev-Yadun S
Science; 2008 Oct; 322(5901):528. PubMed ID: 18948519
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Peer review and the nursing literature.
Dougherty MC
Nurs Res; 2009; 58(2):73. PubMed ID: 19289927
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Peer-review: a citadel under siege.
Apuzzo ML
Neurosurgery; 2008 Nov; 63(5):821. PubMed ID: 19005370
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals.
Raff H; Brown D
Physiol Genomics; 2013 Aug; 45(15):629-30. PubMed ID: 23695886
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
