661 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20487187)
1. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.
Shattell MM; Chinn P; Thomas SP; Cowling WR
J Nurs Scholarsh; 2010 Mar; 42(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20487187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. An international survey of nurse editors' roles and practices.
Freda MC; Kearney M
J Nurs Scholarsh; 2005; 37(1):87-94. PubMed ID: 15813592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors.
O'Brien BC; Artino AR; Costello JA; Driessen E; Maggio LA
PLoS One; 2021; 16(11):e0260558. PubMed ID: 34843564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
Justice AC; Cho MK; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Rennie D
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):240-2. PubMed ID: 9676668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Nursing Journal Policies on Disclosure and Management of Conflicts of Interest.
Barnsteiner J; Shawn Kennedy M; Flanagin A; Sietmann C
J Nurs Scholarsh; 2020 Nov; 52(6):680-687. PubMed ID: 33078574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.
van Rooyen S; Delamothe T; Evans SJ
BMJ; 2010 Nov; 341():c5729. PubMed ID: 21081600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Honorary and ghost authorship in nursing publications.
Kennedy MS; Barnsteiner J; Daly J
J Nurs Scholarsh; 2014 Nov; 46(6):416-22. PubMed ID: 24930670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
Kravitz RL; Franks P; Feldman MD; Gerrity M; Byrne C; Tierney WM
PLoS One; 2010 Apr; 5(4):e10072. PubMed ID: 20386704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
Earnshaw JJ; Farndon JR; Guillou PJ; Johnson CD; Murie JA; Murray GD
Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2000 Apr; 82(4 Suppl):133-5. PubMed ID: 10889776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.
Glonti K; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
BMJ Open; 2019 Nov; 9(11):e033421. PubMed ID: 31767597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study.
Cohen AJ; Patino G; Kamal P; Ndoye M; Tresh A; Mena J; Butler C; Washington S; Breyer BN
J Med Internet Res; 2019 Aug; 21(8):e13769. PubMed ID: 31471960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities.
Williams WA; Garvey KL; Goodman DM; Lauderdale DS; Ross LF
J Pediatr; 2018 Sep; 200():254-260.e1. PubMed ID: 30029860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Who benefits from peer review? An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
Loonen MP; Hage JJ; Kon M
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2005 Oct; 116(5):1461-72; discussion 1473-5. PubMed ID: 16217496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Peer review of the biomedical literature.
Olson CM
Am J Emerg Med; 1990 Jul; 8(4):356-8. PubMed ID: 2194471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL EDITORS' VIEWS ON REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE.
Oehrlein EM; Graff JS; Perfetto EM; Mullins CD; Dubois RW; Anyanwu C; Onukwugha E
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2018 Jan; 34(1):111-119. PubMed ID: 29415784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
