325 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19892628)
1. Peer review practices in biomedical literature: a time for change?
Mahawar KK; Kejariwal D; Malviya A; Birla R; Viswanath YK
Asian J Surg; 2009 Oct; 32(4):240-6. PubMed ID: 19892628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions.
Sweitzer BJ; Cullen DJ
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):152-3. PubMed ID: 8015130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol).
Galipeau J; Moher D; Skidmore B; Campbell C; Hendry P; Cameron DW; Hébert PC; Palepu A
Syst Rev; 2013 Jun; 2():41. PubMed ID: 23773340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Peer review in hematopoietic cell transplantation: are we doing our fair share?
Giralt S; Korngold R; Lazarus HM
Bone Marrow Transplant; 2016 Sep; 51(9):1159-62. PubMed ID: 27159173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Guidelines for writing manuscripts about community-based participatory research for peer-reviewed journals.
Bordeaux BC; Wiley C; Tandon SD; Horowitz CR; Brown PB; Bass EB
Prog Community Health Partnersh; 2007; 1(3):281-8. PubMed ID: 20208291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Review article: reporting guidelines in the biomedical literature.
O'Leary JD; Crawford MW
Can J Anaesth; 2013 Aug; 60(8):813-21. PubMed ID: 23760791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Getting published in peer-reviewed journals.
Dimitroulis G
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2011 Dec; 40(12):1342-5. PubMed ID: 22142552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts.
Garfunkel JM; Lawson EE; Hamrick HJ; Ulshen MH
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1376-8. PubMed ID: 2304217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Dispersed publication of editorial research.
Rosenberg J; Pommergaard HC; Vinther S; Burcharth J
Dan Med J; 2015 Feb; 62(2):. PubMed ID: 25634502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review.
Haffar S; Bazerbachi F; Murad MH
Mayo Clin Proc; 2019 Apr; 94(4):670-676. PubMed ID: 30797567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Authors' Submission Toolkit: a practical guide to getting your research published.
Chipperfield L; Citrome L; Clark J; David FS; Enck R; Evangelista M; Gonzalez J; Groves T; Magrann J; Mansi B; Miller C; Mooney LA; Murphy A; Shelton J; Walson PD; Weigel A
Curr Med Res Opin; 2010 Aug; 26(8):1967-82. PubMed ID: 20569069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde.
Pierie JP; Walvoort HC; Overbeke AJ
Lancet; 1996 Nov; 348(9040):1480-3. PubMed ID: 8942777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals.
Nguyen VM; Haddaway NR; Gutowsky LF; Wilson AD; Gallagher AJ; Donaldson MR; Hammerschlag N; Cooke SJ
PLoS One; 2015; 10(8):e0132557. PubMed ID: 26267491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Submission of scientifically sound and ethical manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals - a reviewer's personal perspective on bioanalytical publications.
Weng N
Biomed Chromatogr; 2012 Nov; 26(11):1457-60. PubMed ID: 22987619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts.
Abby M; Massey MD; Galandiuk S; Polk HC
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):105-7. PubMed ID: 8015116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review.
Teixeira da Silva JA; Dobránszki J
Account Res; 2015; 22(1):22-40. PubMed ID: 25275622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
