252 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20827742)
1. When R & R is not rest & recovery but revise & resubmit.
Bearinger LH; Taliaferro L; Given B
Res Nurs Health; 2010 Oct; 33(5):381-5. PubMed ID: 20827742
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Responding to peer reviews: pointers that authors don't learn in school.
Algase DL
Res Theory Nurs Pract; 2008; 22(4):219-21. PubMed ID: 19093658
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Manuscript revision strategies.
Conn VS
West J Nurs Res; 2007 Nov; 29(7):786-8. PubMed ID: 17968004
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. [Advice for authors. Four principal reasons for manuscript rejection].
Clarke SP
Perspect Infirm; 2006; 3(3):35-9. PubMed ID: 16480058
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Guidelines for assigning authorship.
Foster RL
J Spec Pediatr Nurs; 2006 Oct; 11(4):212-3. PubMed ID: 16999742
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. An interview with the editors: by Daniel D. Moos.
Hooper V; Odom-Forren J
J Perianesth Nurs; 2010 Feb; 25(1):46-9. PubMed ID: 20159536
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. You're a published author!
Wachs JE; Williamson G; Moore PV; Roy D; Childre F
AAOHN J; 2010 Jun; 58(6):233-6. PubMed ID: 20677718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Editorial: thoughts on establishing research significance and preserving scientific integrity.
Drotar D
J Pediatr Psychol; 2008; 33(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 17977891
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. In praise of peer reviewers and the peer review process.
Peternelj-Taylor C
J Forensic Nurs; 2010; 6(4):159-61. PubMed ID: 21114756
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Dealing with editorial misconduct: what about relationship with reviewers and authors?
Laube RE
BMJ; 2005 Feb; 330(7487):364. PubMed ID: 15705711
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
Kennedy MS
Am J Nurs; 2009 Dec; 109(12):7. PubMed ID: 19935148
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Working double-blind.
Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7179):605-6. PubMed ID: 18256621
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Rigour and respect: aspects for consideration when undertaking and publishing research.
Marchant S
Midwifery; 2010 Jun; 26(3):264-7. PubMed ID: 20466468
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Hitting the bull's eye rather than shooting yourself between the eyes.
Froman RD
Res Nurs Health; 2008 Oct; 31(5):399-401. PubMed ID: 18613067
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Scientific letters.
Henly SJ
Nurs Res; 2008; 57(5):301. PubMed ID: 18794713
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The manuscript review process.
Triadafilopoulos G
Gastrointest Endosc; 2006 Dec; 64(6 Suppl):S23-5. PubMed ID: 17113850
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Consider the source.
Mason DJ
Am J Nurs; 2009 Apr; 109(4):7. PubMed ID: 19325281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Stewards of the discipline: The role of referees and peer review.
Broome ME
Nurs Outlook; 2010; 58(4):169-70. PubMed ID: 20637926
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
Mohr WK
Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(5):239. PubMed ID: 19789000
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Publishing in English-language journals.
Davis AJ; Tschudin V
Nurs Ethics; 2007 May; 14(3):425-30. PubMed ID: 17459824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
