412 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2194471)
1. 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]
2. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
Polak JF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):685-8. PubMed ID: 7645496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices in Peer-reviewed Biomedical Journals.
Cooper RJ; Gupta M; Wilkes MS; Hoffman JR
J Gen Intern Med; 2006 Dec; 21(12):1248-52. PubMed ID: 17105524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Blind versus nonblind review: survey of selected medical journals.
Cleary JD; Alexander B
Drug Intell Clin Pharm; 1988; 22(7-8):601-2. PubMed ID: 3416750
[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. 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]
8. Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer.
Faggion CM
Br Dent J; 2016 Feb; 220(4):167-8. PubMed ID: 26917302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.
Glonti K; Cauchi D; Cobo E; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
BMC Med; 2019 Jun; 17(1):118. PubMed ID: 31217033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Medical journal peer review: process and bias.
Manchikanti L; Kaye AD; Boswell MV; Hirsch JA
Pain Physician; 2015; 18(1):E1-E14. PubMed ID: 25675064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.
Cejas C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1181-1184. PubMed ID: 28350482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
Enquselassie F
Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. How to review a scientific paper.
Tandon R
Asian J Psychiatr; 2014 Oct; 11():124-7. PubMed ID: 25248566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?
Gilbert JR; Williams ES; Lundberg GD
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):139-42. PubMed ID: 8015126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
