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.
105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23909103)
21. The art of criticism. Parse RR Nurs Sci Q; 1998; 11(2):43. PubMed ID: 10036454 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Shining a light on the black box of the review process at Research in Nursing & Health. Baggs JG; Minicucci DS Res Nurs Health; 2000 Feb; 23(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 10686567 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. The peer review process in an academic journal. Molassiotis A; Richardson A Eur J Oncol Nurs; 2004 Dec; 8(4):359-62. PubMed ID: 15625751 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. The long journey to publication: some thoughts on the journal review process. Thomas SP Issues Ment Health Nurs; 1998; 19(5):415-8. PubMed ID: 9782859 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Learning to give and accept research critiques: some unique models. Ingram C Can Oncol Nurs J; 2000; 10(1):3-7. PubMed ID: 10887858 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Grant reviews: how to do them well. Koop PM Can Oncol Nurs J; 1999; 9(2):61-3. PubMed ID: 10703294 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Making processes transparent. King KM Can J Cardiovasc Nurs; 2003; 13(1):31-2. PubMed ID: 12703104 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Receiving feedback from reviewers: how to make the most of criticism. Koop PM Can Oncol Nurs J; 1999; 9(4):148-50. PubMed ID: 10786470 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Writing that matters. Hegyvary ST J Nurs Scholarsh; 2005; 37(3):193-4. PubMed ID: 16342432 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. The critique: a necessary part of scientific inquiry. Schmelzer M Gastroenterol Nurs; 2006; 29(4):324-5. PubMed ID: 16974173 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Keeping up journal integrity: the peer-review process. Moore KN J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs; 2005; 32(1):3-5. PubMed ID: 15718949 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. What is in store for 2004? Rapid review will mean cutting edge information to you! Kelley LS J Gerontol Nurs; 2003 Dec; 29(12):5. PubMed ID: 14692237 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time. Clarke SP Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Ten steps to getting your paper published in a professional journal. Devitt P; Hardicre J; Coad J Br J Nurs; 2007 Mar 8-21; 16(5):290-1. PubMed ID: 17505375 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Responses to my editorial on the journal review process. Thomas SP Issues Ment Health Nurs; 1999; 20(3):177-9. PubMed ID: 10633638 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Stewards of the discipline: The role of referees and peer review. Broome ME Nurs Outlook; 2010; 58(4):169-70. PubMed ID: 20637926 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. The good reviewer? Gallagher A Nurs Ethics; 2010 May; 17(3):283-4. PubMed ID: 20444769 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. The introduction of a performance-based system for funding research. Smith T Nurs Prax N Z; 2006 Mar; 22(1):2-5. PubMed ID: 17205666 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]