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.
121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23678023)
21. Response to Scientific journals are 'faith based': is there a science behind peer review? Schroter S J R Soc Med; 2007 Mar; 100(3):117-8. PubMed ID: 17339301 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. CORP: Assessing author compliance with data presentation guidelines for manuscript figures. Keehan KH; Gaffney MC; Zucker IH Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol; 2020 May; 318(5):H1051-H1058. PubMed ID: 32196356 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Assessing ethical and peer review standards of medical journals. Dickens B; Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2016 May; 133(2):249-50. PubMed ID: 26972183 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Landmark, landmine, or landfill? The role of peer review in assessing manuscripts. Balistreri WF J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):107-8. PubMed ID: 17643754 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Some thoughts on the review process. Schramm J World Neurosurg; 2011; 76(1-2):43-4. PubMed ID: 21839940 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. New Year's Resolutions-New Year Reviewers-New Year of Review. Woodruff TK Endocrinology; 2019 Jan; 160(1):36-37. PubMed ID: 30551172 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. [The "peer-review" process in biomedical journals: characteristics of "Elite" reviewers]. Alfonso F Neurologia; 2010; 25(9):521-9. PubMed ID: 21093700 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Peer review in medical journals. Morgan P Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1986 Mar; 292(6521):646. PubMed ID: 3081207 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers. Callaham M; McCulloch C Ann Emerg Med; 2011 Feb; 57(2):141-8. PubMed ID: 21074894 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The peer review process in health journals. Vettore MV Cad Saude Publica; 2009 Nov; 25(11):2306-7. PubMed ID: 19936469 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. What do journal editors want? … and everything you wanted to know about the peer review process for journal publication. Muir-Cochrane E Nurs Health Sci; 2013 Sep; 15(3):263-4. PubMed ID: 24021114 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. A reviewer's lot is not a happy one. Raine CS J Neuroimmunol; 2003 Aug; 141(1-2):1-2. PubMed ID: 12965247 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Blind versus nonblind review: a reevaluation of selected medical journals. Cleary JD; Alexander B DICP; 1990 Nov; 24(11):1117-8. PubMed ID: 2275243 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Welcome Message from the New Editor-in-Chief. Zemel MB J Med Food; 2019 Mar; 22(3):229. PubMed ID: 30844320 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals. Raff H; Brown D J Neurophysiol; 2013 Aug; 110(3):573-4. PubMed ID: 23678018 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Predatory journals- Can we stem the rot? Gogtay NJ; Bavdekar SB J Postgrad Med; 2019; 65(3):129-131. PubMed ID: 31317875 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Celebrating the quality of our referees. Forsythe ID J Physiol; 2017 Oct; 595(20):6369-6370. PubMed ID: 28884466 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]