130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25711858)
1. Announcement: double-blind peer review.
Nat Genet; 2015 Mar; 47(3):187. PubMed ID: 25711858
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. [Double-blind peer review].
Fenyvesi T
Orv Hetil; 2002 Feb; 143(5):245-8. PubMed ID: 11875838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
Naqvi KR
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322504
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Double-blind review: easy to guess in specialist fields.
Lane D
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322503
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Reviewers support blinding in peer review.
Tierney AJ
J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):113. PubMed ID: 18990091
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Announcement: double-blind peer review.
Nat Immunol; 2015 Apr; 16(4):327. PubMed ID: 25789672
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Let's make peer review scientific.
Rennie D
Nature; 2016 Jul; 535(7610):31-3. PubMed ID: 27383970
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Double-blind review: let diversity reign.
O'Hara B
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322502
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Who stands to lose from double-blind review?
Garvalov BK
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322505
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. When the blind lead the blind: In the pit of peer review.
Rossdale PD
Equine Vet J; 2010 May; 42(4):283. PubMed ID: 20525041
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. In praise of peer reviewers and the peer review process.
Peternelj-Taylor C
J Forensic Nurs; 2010; 6(4):159-61. PubMed ID: 21114756
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. More about peer review: is it time for double-blind reviews?
Klein JR
Nat Immunol; 2001 Oct; 2(10):892. PubMed ID: 11577338
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. A personal perspective of the peer review process for plastic publications.
Freshwater MF
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg; 2011 Feb; 64(2):279-82. PubMed ID: 21187271
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Making the case for double-blind peer review in otolaryngology.
Kiliç S; Baredes S; Gray ST; Eloy JA
Laryngoscope; 2017 Sep; 127(9):E332. PubMed ID: 28599063
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Blinded review revisited.
Froman RD
Res Nurs Health; 2010 Aug; 33(4):273-5. PubMed ID: 20645419
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. I think autophagy controls the death of my cells: what do I do to get my paper published?
Thorburn A
Autophagy; 2011 May; 7(5):455-6. PubMed ID: 21270514
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Reviewing dermatology manuscripts and publications.
Nelson CA; Freeman SR; Dellavalle RP
Dermatol Clin; 2009 Apr; 27(2):201-4, viii. PubMed ID: 19254664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
