675 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19020207)
1. Alphabetic bias in the selection of reviewers for the American Journal of Roentgenology.
Richardson ML
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Dec; 191(6):W213-6. PubMed ID: 19020207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.
Kliewer MA; Freed KS; DeLong DM; Pickhardt PJ; Provenzale JM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Jun; 184(6):1731-5. PubMed ID: 15908521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; Provenzale JM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Dec; 183(6):1545-50. PubMed ID: 15547189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.
Kurihara Y; Colletti PM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Sep; 201(3):468-70. PubMed ID: 23971437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. The internationalization of the American Journal of Roentgenology: 1980-1992.
Elster AD; Chen MY
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Mar; 162(3):519-22. PubMed ID: 8109488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
Enquselassie F
Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.
Cejas C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1181-1184. PubMed ID: 28350482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Proposal of a method for deciding whether an AJR manuscript merits publication: The 25% rule.
Provenzale JM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Aug; 195(2):278-80. PubMed ID: 20651181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A Shorter Invitation Period for
Provenzale JM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Jan; 214(1):37-40. PubMed ID: 31714844
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Prevalence of honorary coauthorship in the American Journal of Roentgenology.
Bonekamp S; Halappa VG; Corona-Villalobos CP; Mensa M; Eng J; Lewin JS; Kamel IR
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Jun; 198(6):1247-55. PubMed ID: 22623536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Implementation of a journal peer reviewer stratification system based on quality and reliability.
Green SM; Callaham ML
Ann Emerg Med; 2011 Feb; 57(2):149-152.e4. PubMed ID: 20947204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Characteristics and trends of radiology research: a survey of original articles published in AJR and Radiology between 2001 and 2010.
Lim KJ; Yoon DY; Yun EJ; Seo YL; Baek S; Gu DH; Yoon SJ; Han A; Ku YJ; Kim SS
Radiology; 2012 Sep; 264(3):796-802. PubMed ID: 22919040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Author perception of peer review.
Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR
Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Decline to Review a Manuscript: Insight and Implications for
Raniga SB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Apr; 214(4):723-726. PubMed ID: 31967499
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Improving the quality of manuscript reviews: impact of introducing a structured electronic template to submit reviews.
Rajesh A; Cloud G; Harisinghani MG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Jan; 200(1):20-3. PubMed ID: 23255737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
Frank E
Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
