These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21927782)
41. The evolution of the psychiatry research journal. Krystal JH J Clin Psychiatry; 2009 Nov; 70(11):1601-2. PubMed ID: 20031103 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
42. Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Lipworth WL; Kerridge IH; Carter SM; Little M Soc Sci Med; 2011 Apr; 72(7):1056-63. PubMed ID: 21388730 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Armstrong AW; Idriss SZ; Kimball AB; Bernhard JD J Am Acad Dermatol; 2008 Apr; 58(4):632-5. PubMed ID: 18249470 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. In support of the evidence. Merewood A J Hum Lact; 2012 Nov; 28(4):445. PubMed ID: 23087192 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
45. Peer review. Suggesting or excluding reviewers can help get your paper published. Grimm D Science; 2005 Sep; 309(5743):1974. PubMed ID: 16179438 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
46. The emerging landscape of scientific publishing. Fiala C; Diamandis EP Clin Biochem; 2017 Aug; 50(12):651-655. PubMed ID: 28434986 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Reflections on pediatric research. Zipursky A Pediatr Res; 2003 Dec; 54(6):790. PubMed ID: 14605239 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. A new twist on peer review. Patterson M; Schekman R Elife; 2018 Jun; 7():. PubMed ID: 29944117 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. The Vision for Preparing the Next Generation of Reviewers for the Scholarly Scientific Publication Process. Habal MB J Craniofac Surg; 2016 Mar; 27(2):275-6. PubMed ID: 26963295 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
51. Peer review: is it a social process? Quintana LM World Neurosurg; 2011; 76(1-2):41-2. PubMed ID: 21839939 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. Reviewers: the ultimate resource for scientific publishing. Brunner PH; Cossu R Waste Manag; 2015 May; 39():1-2. PubMed ID: 25817723 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review. Judson HF JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):92-4. PubMed ID: 8015139 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
55. Peer review in academic publishing: threats and challenges. Misra DP; Ravindran V J R Coll Physicians Edinb; 2019 Jun; 49(2):99-100. PubMed ID: 31188334 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
56. Access to scientific information: from counting to accountability. Popovic T; Araujo J J Public Health Manag Pract; 2012; 18(3):228-32. PubMed ID: 22473115 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
59. Playing the game of scientific publishing. Fiala C; Diamandis EP Clin Biochem; 2019 Nov; 73():118-120. PubMed ID: 31377346 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]