516 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21901436)
1. The peer review process III: when the decision is made.
Riss P
Int Urogynecol J; 2012 Jul; 23(7):811-2. PubMed ID: 21901436
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Peers review, editors decide, and then, what?
Schachat AP
Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Apr; 143(4):677-8. PubMed ID: 17386274
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. [The impact factor and editorial decisions].
Matías-Guiu J; García-Ramos R
Neurologia; 2008; 23(6):342-8. PubMed ID: 18597189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Report of the editors--2015.
Biometrics; 2016 Mar; 72(1):7-9. PubMed ID: 27059160
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Fate of the peer review process at the ESA: long-term outcome of submitted studies over a 5-year period.
Raptis DA; Oberkofler CE; Gouma D; Garden OJ; Bismuth H; Lerut T; Clavien PA
Ann Surg; 2010 Nov; 252(5):715-25. PubMed ID: 21037426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 2015 Year-End Metrics.
Karimbux NY
J Dent Educ; 2016 Feb; 80(2):119-20. PubMed ID: 26834127
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. What weight does impact factor carry?
Aase S
J Am Diet Assoc; 2008 Oct; 108(10):1604-7. PubMed ID: 18926118
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Improving the "impact" of academic psychiatry.
Coverdale JH; Weiss Roberts L; Balon R; Louie AK; Beresin EV
Acad Psychiatry; 2008; 32(3):169-72. PubMed ID: 18467469
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. [Is Tidsskriftet's publishing time too long?].
Sellevold OF; Bratlid D
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2010 Jun; 130(12):1228-31. PubMed ID: 20567273
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Differences between information in registries and articles did not influence publication acceptance.
van Lent M; IntHout J; Out HJ
J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Sep; 68(9):1059-67. PubMed ID: 25542517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Tidsskriftet, peer review and medical publishing].
Bjørheim J; Frich JC; Gjersvik P; Jacobsen G; Swensen E
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2006 Jan; 126(1):20-3. PubMed ID: 16397649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Improvement and decision-making process of an article].
Matías-Guiu J; García Ramos R
Neurologia; 2009; 24(6):353-8. PubMed ID: 19798600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Translation of the scientific method... Peer review.
Scarfe WC
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Apr; 109(4):485-7. PubMed ID: 20176497
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Increasing the JIF of mycoses: a challenge with several facets.
Korting HC
Mycoses; 2007 Sep; 50(5):331. PubMed ID: 17714355
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Neutralizing the impact factor culture.
Notkins AL
Science; 2008 Oct; 322(5899):191. PubMed ID: 18845731
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2007: Enriching our service to authors and readers.
Lanier WL
Mayo Clin Proc; 2007 Jan; 82(1):16-9. PubMed ID: 22135836
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Painful publishing.
Raff M; Johnson A; Walter P
Science; 2008 Jul; 321(5885):36. PubMed ID: 18599755
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
