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.
148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2594115)
1. [Peer review]. Boer EJ Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1989 Dec; 133(49):2455-9. PubMed ID: 2594115 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. [Peer review in request for subsidy]. Monnens LA Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1997 Aug; 141(32):1581-2. PubMed ID: 9543756 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. How do we ensure 'high quality' clinical research? Creinin MD; Shields W Contraception; 2005 Aug; 72(2):83-4. PubMed ID: 16022844 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. [Peer review for the "Revista de Investigación Clínica]. Loría A; Lisker R Rev Invest Clin; 1994; 46(3):175-6. PubMed ID: 7973139 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. [An article for the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine)?]. van Gijn J Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2001 Jan; 145(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 11198957 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Peer review: is one-eye king?]. de Jong BC; Overbeke AJ Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1993 Jan; 137(1):17-21. PubMed ID: 8419837 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Upgrading our instructions for authors. Schriger DL; Wears RL; Cooper RJ; Callaham ML Ann Emerg Med; 2003 Apr; 41(4):565-7. PubMed ID: 12658258 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Should there be statistical guidelines for medical research papers? Biometrics; 1978 Dec; 34(4):687-95. PubMed ID: 749952 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. [Bibliometric indicators of the quality of medical scientific research in The Netherlands and Flanders]. Moed HF; Van Ark GA; van den Berghe H Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1995 Jul; 139(29):1483-9. PubMed ID: 7630454 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. [The last judgment?]. Dunning AJ Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1987 Jan; 131(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 3821965 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Improving the quality of clinical trials in surgery. Piantadosi S J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2006 Aug; 132(2):247-8. PubMed ID: 16872944 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Co-ordinating editor's comments on the letter to the editors by A. Herxheimer. Dahlqvist R Eur J Clin Pharmacol; 2000; 55(11-12):883-4. PubMed ID: 10905875 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. How to ensure your paper is rejected by the statistical reviewer. Stratton IM; Neil A Diabet Med; 2005 Apr; 22(4):371-3. PubMed ID: 15787658 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Unpleasant surprises: how the Introduction has wandered into the Discussion. Wells WA J Cell Biol; 2006 Sep; 174(6):741. PubMed ID: 16954351 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. [Advice for authors. Four principal reasons for manuscript rejection]. Clarke SP Perspect Infirm; 2006; 3(3):35-9. PubMed ID: 16480058 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Peer review: an experiment. Harnad S Science; 1980 May; 208(4447):974, 976. PubMed ID: 7375919 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Manuscript review from a statistician's perspective. Vaisrub N JAMA; 1985 Jun; 253(21):3145-7. PubMed ID: 3999302 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. [Peer review when applying for a subsidy]. Klasen EC Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1997 Jun; 141(23):1161-2. PubMed ID: 9380149 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]