750 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22849979)
1. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.
Chung KC; Shauver MJ; Malay S; Zhong L; Weinstein A; Rohrich RJ
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2015 Dec; 136(6):1369-1377. PubMed ID: 26273735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
Kearney MH; Freda MC
Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study.
Bingham CM; Higgins G; Coleman R; Van Der Weyden MB
Lancet; 1998 Aug; 352(9126):441-5. PubMed ID: 9708752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
Snell L; Spencer J
Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Black N; Smith R
BMJ; 1999 Jan; 318(7175):23-7. PubMed ID: 9872878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.
Jagsi R; Bennett KE; Griffith KA; DeCastro R; Grace C; Holliday E; Zietman AL
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Aug; 89(5):940-946. PubMed ID: 25035195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Appearance of ghost and gift authors in Ugeskrift for Læger and Danish Medical Journal.
Vinther S; Rosenberg J
Dan Med J; 2012 May; 59(5):A4455. PubMed ID: 22549492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Double-blind peer review].
Fenyvesi T
Orv Hetil; 2002 Feb; 143(5):245-8. PubMed ID: 11875838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.
Schroter S; Black N; Evans S; Carpenter J; Godlee F; Smith R
BMJ; 2004 Mar; 328(7441):673. PubMed ID: 14996698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Author perception of peer review.
Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR
Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
Frank E
Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Prepublication review of medical ethics research: cause for concern.
Landy DC; Coverdale JH; McCullough LB; Sharp RR
Acad Med; 2009 Apr; 84(4):495-7. PubMed ID: 19318788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument.
Landkroon AP; Euser AM; Veeken H; Hart W; Overbeke AJ
Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Oct; 108(4):979-85. PubMed ID: 17012462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
Das Sinha S; Sahni P; Nundy S
Natl Med J India; 1999; 12(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 10613000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Survey of conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of ophthalmology journals.
Anraku A; Jin YP; Trope GE; Buys YM
Ophthalmology; 2009 Jun; 116(6):1093-6. PubMed ID: 19376583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.
Regehr G; Bordage G
Med Educ; 2006 Sep; 40(9):832-9. PubMed ID: 16925632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
