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.
236 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2406473)
1. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. Chalmers TC; Frank CS; Reitman D JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1392-5. PubMed ID: 2406473 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. What can and should be done to reduce publication bias? The perspective of an editor. Sharp DW JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1390-1. PubMed ID: 2304218 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Wagner AK; Boninger ML; Levy C; Chan L; Gater D; Kirby RL Am J Phys Med Rehabil; 2003 Oct; 82(10):790-802. PubMed ID: 14508411 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A two-step manuscript submission process can reduce publication bias. Smulders YM J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Sep; 66(9):946-7. PubMed ID: 23845183 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The Lancet's statistical review process: areas for improvement by authors. Gore SM; Jones G; Thompson SG Lancet; 1992 Jul; 340(8811):100-2. PubMed ID: 1351973 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Problems identified by secondary review of accepted manuscripts. Garfunkel JM; Ulshen MH; Hamrick HJ; Lawson EE JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1369-71. PubMed ID: 2304215 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Medical journal peer review: process and bias. Manchikanti L; Kaye AD; Boswell MV; Hirsch JA Pain Physician; 2015; 18(1):E1-E14. PubMed ID: 25675064 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Reviewing scientific manuscripts: how much statistical knowledge should a reviewer really know? Morton JP Adv Physiol Educ; 2009 Mar; 33(1):7-9. PubMed ID: 19261753 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Peer review in scientific journals--what good is it? Relman AS West J Med; 1990 Nov; 153(5):520-2. PubMed ID: 2260288 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Are Private Interests Clouding the Peer-Review Process of the WHO Bulletin? A Case Study. Homedes N; Ugalde A Account Res; 2016; 23(5):309-17. PubMed ID: 27028494 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Control of data, authorship, and responsibility for clinical trials publications. Freeman WR Ophthalmology; 2005 Sep; 112(9):1485-6. PubMed ID: 16139664 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Tips for writing and publishing an article. Nahata MC Ann Pharmacother; 2008 Feb; 42(2):273-7. PubMed ID: 18212252 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
16. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals. Azer SA; Ramani S; Peterson R Med Teach; 2012; 34(9):698-704. PubMed ID: 22643022 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The tarnished gold standard for GM risk assessment. Miller HI GM Crops; 2010; 1(2):59-61. PubMed ID: 21865872 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials. Del Mar C; Hoffmann TC BMC Med; 2015 Nov; 13():248. PubMed ID: 26521647 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]