134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26174615)
1. Blinded by the light: Anonymization should be used in peer review to prevent bias, not protect referees.
Shaw DM
EMBO Rep; 2015 Aug; 16(8):894-7. PubMed ID: 26174615
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Rebound peer review: a viable recourse for aggrieved authors?
Sen CK
Antioxid Redox Signal; 2012 Feb; 16(4):293-6. PubMed ID: 22098370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. How to avoid the reviewer's axe: one editor's view.
Senturia SD
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2004 Jan; 51(1):127-30. PubMed ID: 14995024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Debate on peer review. Report from an international congress on peer review].
Grimby G
Lakartidningen; 2002 Jul; 99(30-31):3109-10. PubMed ID: 12198929
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Research on peer review and biomedical publication: furthering the quest to improve the quality of reporting.
Rennie D; Flanagin A
JAMA; 2014 Mar; 311(10):1019-20. PubMed ID: 24618962
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Bad science, sloppy reporting, and retracted publications: should peer review be the scapegoat?
Thomas SP
Issues Ment Health Nurs; 2014 Jun; 35(6):411-2. PubMed ID: 24857524
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. The peer review process (aka peer reviewology).
Yucha CB
Biol Res Nurs; 2002 Oct; 4(2):71-2. PubMed ID: 12408212
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review.
Laband DN; Piette MJ
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):147-9. PubMed ID: 8015128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Medical journals turn gaze inward to examine process of peer review.
Stephenson J
JAMA; 1997 Nov; 278(17):1389-91. PubMed ID: 9355982
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. What do we know about peer review?
Wessely S
Psychol Med; 1996 Sep; 26(5):883-6. PubMed ID: 8878322
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Peer review in action: the contribution of referees to advancing reliable knowledge.
Hanks G
Palliat Med; 2005 Jul; 19(5):359-70. PubMed ID: 16111059
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Manuscript processing 101: problems and solutions.
DiBartola S; Hinchcliff K
J Vet Intern Med; 1999; 13(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 10052055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Peer review and appeal: flawed but trusted?
Pravinkumar E
Lancet; 2003 Aug; 362(9385):747. PubMed ID: 12957106
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. On ghost authorship and reviews: the 6th International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication.
Baethge C
Dtsch Arztebl Int; 2009 Nov; 106(45):731-2. PubMed ID: 19997585
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Referees should exercise their rights.
Nature; 2018 Aug; 560(7719):409. PubMed ID: 30131542
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Planning for Publication.
Nazaroff WW
Indoor Air; 2017 Sep; 27(5):865-867. PubMed ID: 28833530
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The system rewards a dishonest approach.
Brookfield J
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774095
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Bitcoin for the biological literature.
Heaven D
Nature; 2019 Feb; 566(7742):141-142. PubMed ID: 30718888
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Conflict of interest and financial disclosure: judge the science, not the author.
Welch SJ
Chest; 1997 Oct; 112(4):865-7. PubMed ID: 9377943
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
