363 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25035195)
1. Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.
Jagsi R; Bennett KE; Griffith KA; DeCastro R; Grace C; Holliday E; Zietman AL
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Aug; 89(5):940-946. PubMed ID: 25035195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.
O'Connor EE; Cousar M; Lentini JA; Castillo M; Halm K; Zeffiro TA
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol; 2017 Feb; 38(2):230-235. PubMed ID: 27856433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.
Regehr G; Bordage G
Med Educ; 2006 Sep; 40(9):832-9. PubMed ID: 16925632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.
Chung KC; Shauver MJ; Malay S; Zhong L; Weinstein A; Rohrich RJ
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2015 Dec; 136(6):1369-1377. PubMed ID: 26273735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
Fisher M; Friedman SB; Strauss B
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):143-6. PubMed ID: 8015127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives.
Bunner C; Larson EL
Am J Infect Control; 2012 Oct; 40(8):701-4. PubMed ID: 23021414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. How blind is blind review?
Yankauer A
Am J Public Health; 1991 Jul; 81(7):843-5. PubMed ID: 2053657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices in Peer-reviewed Biomedical Journals.
Cooper RJ; Gupta M; Wilkes MS; Hoffman JR
J Gen Intern Med; 2006 Dec; 21(12):1248-52. PubMed ID: 17105524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Write a scientific paper (WASP): Editor's perspective of submissions and dealing with editors.
Cuschieri S; Vassallo J
Early Hum Dev; 2019 Feb; 129():93-95. PubMed ID: 30578111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal.
Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC
Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.
Budden AE; Tregenza T; Aarssen LW; Koricheva J; Leimu R; Lortie CJ
Trends Ecol Evol; 2008 Jan; 23(1):4-6. PubMed ID: 17963996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
McNutt RA; Evans AT; Fletcher RH; Fletcher SW
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1371-6. PubMed ID: 2304216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
