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.
196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22179321)
61. The ARRIVE guidelines: a resource for authors and reviewers to ensure that submissions to The Veterinary Journal meet minimal expectations of completeness, accuracy and transparency. Blomme EA Vet J; 2011 Sep; 189(3):237-8. PubMed ID: 21924210 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
62. Settlement deprives peer review of its day in court. Macilwain C Nature; 1996 Nov; 384(6604):4. PubMed ID: 8900254 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
63. The elephant in the room: quality control of endometriosis data. Koninckx PR; Batt RE; Hummelshoj L; McVeigh E; Ussia A; Yeh J J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2010; 17(5):637-40. PubMed ID: 20728823 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. Rethinking peer review. Young K CMAJ; 2010 Feb; 182(3):281. PubMed ID: 20176769 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
69. Editorial: in praise of scientific review officers. Elahi D; Mirmira RG; Kushner JA Mol Endocrinol; 2014 Jul; 28(7):987-8. PubMed ID: 24983311 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
70. The manuscript review process: What do editors do? Ramam M Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol; 2016; 82(6):599-602. PubMed ID: 27716720 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
71. Publish or Perish: A Mandate With Negative Collateral Consequences. Hasan SS; Ahmadi K Acad Med; 2017 Feb; 92(2):140. PubMed ID: 28118247 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
72. With appreciation and expectation. Adams T Optom Vis Sci; 2014 Dec; 91(12):1381. PubMed ID: 25602373 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
73. Statement on matching language to the type of evidence used in describing outcomes data. Editors of the HEART Group Journals J Cardiovasc Pharmacol; 2012 Dec; 60(6):561. PubMed ID: 23222250 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
74. Who reviews the reviewers? Bidstrup B Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann; 2006 Oct; 14(5):357-8. PubMed ID: 17005878 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
75. Critical appraisal of the literature. Why do we care? Ferreira JC; Patino CM J Bras Pneumol; 2018; 44(6):448. PubMed ID: 30726319 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
76. [In R&D projects... who is vouching for the evaluator?]. Fernández-Vigo López J; Martínez García JM Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol; 2004 Oct; 79(10):483. PubMed ID: 15523568 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
77. Building an ARC to Grant Success: The Aims Review Committee. Nigrovic PA Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken); 2017 Apr; 69(4):459-461. PubMed ID: 27696715 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
78. Invited critique: fostering a plurality of voices in the burn literature: a concept not common to scholarly consideration of the editorial peer review process. Jeng JC J Burn Care Res; 2007; 28(2):247. PubMed ID: 17351440 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
79. Crowd-based peer review can be good and fast. List B Nature; 2017 May; 546(7656):9. PubMed ID: 28569830 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]