167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26423849)
1. Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort study.
van Lent M; IntHout J; Out HJ
BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e007961. PubMed ID: 26423849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Role of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journals.
van Lent M; Overbeke J; Out HJ
PLoS One; 2014; 9(8):e104846. PubMed ID: 25118182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Shortcomings of protocols of drug trials in relation to sponsorship as identified by Research Ethics Committees: analysis of comments raised during ethical review.
van Lent M; Rongen GA; Out HJ
BMC Med Ethics; 2014 Dec; 15():83. PubMed ID: 25490963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Differences between information in registries and articles did not influence publication acceptance.
van Lent M; IntHout J; Out HJ
J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Sep; 68(9):1059-67. PubMed ID: 25542517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Impact of study outcome on submission and acceptance metrics for peer reviewed medical journals: six year retrospective review of all completed GlaxoSmithKline human drug research studies.
Evoniuk G; Mansi B; DeCastro B; Sykes J
BMJ; 2017 Apr; 357():j1726. PubMed ID: 28432051
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal.
Turcotte C; Drolet P; Girard M
Can J Anaesth; 2004; 51(6):549-56. PubMed ID: 15197116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Variability of Reviewers' Comments in the Peer Review Process for Orthopaedic Research.
Iantorno SE; Andras LM; Skaggs DL
Spine Deform; 2016 Jul; 4(4):268-271. PubMed ID: 27927515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.
Herber OR; Bradbury-Jones C; Böling S; Combes S; Hirt J; Koop Y; Nyhagen R; Veldhuizen JD; Taylor J
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 May; 20(1):122. PubMed ID: 32423388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals.
Lee KP; Boyd EA; Holroyd-Leduc JM; Bacchetti P; Bero LA
Med J Aust; 2006 Jun; 184(12):621-6. PubMed ID: 16803442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports.
Bordage G
Acad Med; 2001 Sep; 76(9):889-96. PubMed ID: 11553504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Authors' Submission Toolkit: a practical guide to getting your research published.
Chipperfield L; Citrome L; Clark J; David FS; Enck R; Evangelista M; Gonzalez J; Groves T; Magrann J; Mansi B; Miller C; Mooney LA; Murphy A; Shelton J; Walson PD; Weigel A
Curr Med Res Opin; 2010 Aug; 26(8):1967-82. PubMed ID: 20569069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Cross-sectional study of Pfizer-sponsored clinical trials: assessment of time to publication and publication history.
Mooney LA; Fay L
BMJ Open; 2016 Jul; 6(7):e012362. PubMed ID: 27431904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial.
Cobo E; Selva-O'Callagham A; Ribera JM; Cardellach F; Dominguez R; Vilardell M
PLoS One; 2007 Mar; 2(3):e332. PubMed ID: 17389922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-reviewed journals in 2012.
Lamb CR; Adams CA
Equine Vet J; 2015 Nov; 47(6):736-40. PubMed ID: 25302854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping.
Siler K; Lee K; Bero L
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2015 Jan; 112(2):360-5. PubMed ID: 25535380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Armstrong AW; Idriss SZ; Kimball AB; Bernhard JD
J Am Acad Dermatol; 2008 Apr; 58(4):632-5. PubMed ID: 18249470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Peer review in a small and a big medical journal: case study of the Croatian Medical Journal and the Lancet.
Marusić A; Lukić IK; Marusić M; McNamee D; Sharp D; Horton R
Croat Med J; 2002 Jun; 43(3):286-9. PubMed ID: 12035133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?
Gilbert JR; Williams ES; Lundberg GD
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):139-42. PubMed ID: 8015126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
