568 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23971437)
1. How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.
Kurihara Y; Colletti PM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Sep; 201(3):468-70. PubMed ID: 23971437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.
Kliewer MA; Freed KS; DeLong DM; Pickhardt PJ; Provenzale JM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Jun; 184(6):1731-5. PubMed ID: 15908521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; Provenzale JM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Dec; 183(6):1545-50. PubMed ID: 15547189
[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. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
Enquselassie F
Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.
Cejas C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1181-1184. PubMed ID: 28350482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers.
Navalta JW; Lyons TS
Adv Physiol Educ; 2010 Dec; 34(4):170-3. PubMed ID: 21098383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Peering Into Peer Review:
Provenzale JM; Buch K; Filippi CG; Gaskill-Shipley M; Hacein-Bey L; Soares BP
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Jan; 214(1):45-49. PubMed ID: 31670589
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.
Vintzileos AM; Ananth CV; Odibo AO; Chauhan SP; Smulian JC; Oyelese Y
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):703.e1-5. PubMed ID: 24983685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR.
Chew FS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1991 Mar; 156(3):627-32. PubMed ID: 1899764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Improving the quality of manuscript reviews: impact of introducing a structured electronic template to submit reviews.
Rajesh A; Cloud G; Harisinghani MG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Jan; 200(1):20-3. PubMed ID: 23255737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Alphabetic bias in the selection of reviewers for the American Journal of Roentgenology.
Richardson ML
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Dec; 191(6):W213-6. PubMed ID: 19020207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Does online submission of manuscripts improve efficiency?
Govender P; Buckley O; McAuley G; O'Brien J; Torreggiani WC
JBR-BTR; 2008; 91(6):231-4. PubMed ID: 19202995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript.
Provenzale JM; Stanley RJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Oct; 185(4):848-54. PubMed ID: 16177399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Metrics for Original Research Articles in the AJR: From First Submission to Final Publication.
Rosenkrantz AB; Harisinghani M
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Jun; 204(6):1152-6. PubMed ID: 26001223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
