910 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19561471)
1. Evaluating the surgery literature: can standardizing peer-review today predict manuscript impact tomorrow?
Sosa JA; Mehta P; Thomas DC; Berland G; Gross C; McNamara RL; Rosenthal R; Udelsman R; Bravata DM; Roman SA
Ann Surg; 2009 Jul; 250(1):152-8. PubMed ID: 19561471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Armstrong AW; Idriss SZ; Kimball AB; Bernhard JD
J Am Acad Dermatol; 2008 Apr; 58(4):632-5. PubMed ID: 18249470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Rating Pakistani medical journals using the principles of citation analysis.
Ullah M; Butt IF
Health Info Libr J; 2008 Mar; 25(1):50-4. PubMed ID: 18251913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Appointment of statistical editor and quality of statistics in a small medical journal.
Lukić IK; Marusić M
Croat Med J; 2001 Oct; 42(5):500-3. PubMed ID: 11593496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003.
Liesegang TJ; Shaikh M; Crook JE
Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Apr; 143(4):551-60. PubMed ID: 17276380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Association of industry sponsorship to published outcomes in gastrointestinal clinical research.
Brown A; Kraft D; Schmitz SM; Sharpless V; Martin C; Shah R; Shaheen NJ
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2006 Dec; 4(12):1445-51. PubMed ID: 17101295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Are studies reporting significant results more likely to be published?
Koletsi D; Karagianni A; Pandis N; Makou M; Polychronopoulou A; Eliades T
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Nov; 136(5):632.e1-5; discussion 632-3. PubMed ID: 19892276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.
Etemadi A; Raiszadeh F; Alaeddini F; Azizi F
Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S29-33. PubMed ID: 14968189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. An assessment of the methodologic quality of medical education research studies published in The American Journal of Surgery.
Reed DA; Beckman TJ; Wright SM
Am J Surg; 2009 Sep; 198(3):442-4. PubMed ID: 19716888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Trend analysis of disaster health articles in peer-reviewed publications pre- and post-9/11.
Kelen G; Sauer LM
Am J Disaster Med; 2008; 3(6):369-76. PubMed ID: 19202890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A retrospective study investigating requests for self-citation during open peer review in a general medicine journal.
Peebles E; Scandlyn M; Hesp BR
PLoS One; 2020; 15(8):e0237804. PubMed ID: 32817699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The pattern of publishing previously rejected articles in selected journals.
Whitman N; Eyre S
Fam Med; 1985; 17(1):26-8. PubMed ID: 3843082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
Henly SJ; Dougherty MC
Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 19150263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal.
Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC
Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Artifactual increase in journal self-citation.
Tighe P; Rice KJ; Gravenstein N; Rice MJ
Anesth Analg; 2011 Aug; 113(2):378-82. PubMed ID: 21596873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Online survey of nursing journal peer reviewers: indicators of quality in manuscripts.
Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome M
West J Nurs Res; 2011 Jun; 33(4):506-21. PubMed ID: 21078915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
