142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2053657)
1. How blind is blind review?
Yankauer A
Am J Public Health; 1991 Jul; 81(7):843-5. PubMed ID: 2053657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.
O'Connor EE; Cousar M; Lentini JA; Castillo M; Halm K; Zeffiro TA
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol; 2017 Feb; 38(2):230-235. PubMed ID: 27856433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
McNutt RA; Evans AT; Fletcher RH; Fletcher SW
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1371-6. PubMed ID: 2304216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.
Regehr G; Bordage G
Med Educ; 2006 Sep; 40(9):832-9. PubMed ID: 16925632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators.
Cho MK; Justice AC; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Waeckerle JF; Callaham ML; Rennie D
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):243-5. PubMed ID: 9676669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. How to evaluate and acknowledge a scientific journal peer reviewer: a proposed index to measure the performance of reviewers.
Messias AMV; Lira RPC; Furtado JMF; Paula JS; Rocha EM
Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2017; 80(6):V. PubMed ID: 29267566
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review.
Kern-Goldberger AR; James R; Berghella V; Miller ES
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Jul; 227(1):43-50.e4. PubMed ID: 35120887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Conflicting interests involved in the process of publishing in biomedical journals.
Igi R
J BUON; 2015; 20(5):1373-7. PubMed ID: 26537088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
Snell L; Spencer J
Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?
Yankauer A
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1338-40. PubMed ID: 2304210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. What can and should be done to reduce publication bias? The perspective of an editor.
Sharp DW
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1390-1. PubMed ID: 2304218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Tips for writing and publishing an article.
Nahata MC
Ann Pharmacother; 2008 Feb; 42(2):273-7. PubMed ID: 18212252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Journal Publishing: A Review of the Basics.
Kennedy MS
Semin Oncol Nurs; 2018 Nov; 34(4):361-371. PubMed ID: 30266551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.
Chung KC; Shauver MJ; Malay S; Zhong L; Weinstein A; Rohrich RJ
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2015 Dec; 136(6):1369-1377. PubMed ID: 26273735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
