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.
22. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection. Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Conflict in peer review. Lawrence DJ J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 1990 May; 13(4):177-8. PubMed ID: 2351879 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. How to get your paper rejected. Chernick V Pediatr Pulmonol; 2008 Mar; 43(3):220-3. PubMed ID: 18203183 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Lesson from fate of rejected paper. Wiwanitkit V Indian Pediatr; 2011 May; 48(5):410. PubMed ID: 21654014 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. [Lakartidningen's scrutiny routines--equal to the heavies. The peer review system and the expert editorial staff guarantee scientific quality]. Milerad J; Ahlberg J; Bågedahl-Strindlund M; Eliasson M; Fridén B; Håkansson A; Sundberg CJ; Ostergren J Lakartidningen; 2003 Nov; 100(48):3934-6. PubMed ID: 14717088 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. The need to improve the quality of scientific manuscripts published in Nigerian biomedical journals. Laabes EP; Glew RH West Afr J Med; 2007; 26(2):160. PubMed ID: 17939322 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Biomedical review articles: what editors want from authors and peer reviewers. Squires BP CMAJ; 1989 Aug; 141(3):195-7. PubMed ID: 2752346 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. [Electronic manuscripts: the periodicals earn money, the referees pay]. Kelly KB Lakartidningen; 2005 Mar 14-20; 102(11):888. PubMed ID: 15835532 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Review process for nursing journals: making the best of any review system. Swanson EA Nurse Author Ed; 1993; 3(2):3-4, 7-9. PubMed ID: 8220617 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Dear editor - a note from any imaginary author in response to any referee. Kelly BD Med Hypotheses; 2009 Mar; 72(3):359. PubMed ID: 19084343 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. [Peer review of scientific manuscripts should be open and referees' bias should be accounted for]. Thörn A Lakartidningen; 2004 Oct; 101(44):3458. PubMed ID: 15560663 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Publishing workshops: Number 1. Preparing manuscripts. Crisp J; Chick N; Rodgers J; Smith T Nurs Prax N Z; 1996 Jul; 11(2):23-9. PubMed ID: 8970328 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. [The last judgment?]. Dunning AJ Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1987 Jan; 131(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 3821965 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Journal matters. Robinson RG N Z Med J; 1985 Sep; 98(787):797-8. PubMed ID: 3865078 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Snapshots of editing a medical journal. Rajasoorya C Singapore Med J; 2003 Dec; 44(12):610-3. PubMed ID: 14770253 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]