440 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22918342)
1. Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer.
Clark RK
Br Dent J; 2012 Aug; 213(4):153-4. PubMed ID: 22918342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
Kennedy MS
Am J Nurs; 2009 Dec; 109(12):7. PubMed ID: 19935148
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. How to avoid the reviewer's axe: one editor's view.
Senturia SD
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2004 Jan; 51(1):127-30. PubMed ID: 14995024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. [The journals must honestly tell who is doing the job].
Bergström R
Lakartidningen; 2008 May 7-13; 105(19):1406-7. PubMed ID: 18574981
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Meaningful peer review is integral to quality science and should provide benefits to the authors and reviewers alike.
Carrell DT; Rajpert-De Meyts E
Andrology; 2013 Jul; 1(4):531-2. PubMed ID: 23785017
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Promoting ethical conduct in the publication of research.
Freedman JE
Cardiovasc Ther; 2008; 26(2):89-90. PubMed ID: 18485131
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance?
Weiner BK; Weiner JP; Smith HE
Spine J; 2010 Mar; 10(3):209-11. PubMed ID: 20207330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Journals under pressure: publish, and be damned.
Adam D; Knight J
Nature; 2002 Oct; 419(6909):772-6. PubMed ID: 12397323
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The role of editors, reviewers and authors in improving the journal quality.
Bugiardini R
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown); 2011 Jan; 12(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 21263233
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Researchers, authors and reviewers: what are our responsibilities?
Kramer MS
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 2012 Jul; 26(4):308-9. PubMed ID: 22686381
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Dealing with editorial misconduct: what about relationship with reviewers and authors?
Laube RE
BMJ; 2005 Feb; 330(7487):364. PubMed ID: 15705711
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. [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]
17. 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]
18. Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives.
Bunner C; Larson EL
Am J Infect Control; 2012 Oct; 40(8):701-4. PubMed ID: 23021414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The garbage collectors: could a particular sector of author-pays journals become silently acknowledged collectors of scientific waste?
Moore A
Bioessays; 2009 Aug; 31(8):821. PubMed ID: 19609967
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Ethical and quasi-ethical issues in medical editing and publishing.
Pitkin RM
Croat Med J; 1998 Jun; 39(2):95-101. PubMed ID: 9575262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
