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.
22. Implementation of a journal peer reviewer stratification system based on quality and reliability. Green SM; Callaham ML Ann Emerg Med; 2011 Feb; 57(2):149-152.e4. PubMed ID: 20947204 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Reference accuracy: authors', reviewers', editors', and publishers' contributions. Barroga EF J Korean Med Sci; 2014 Dec; 29(12):1587-9. PubMed ID: 25469055 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [Lakartidningen's scrutiny routines--equal to the heavies. The peer review system and the expert editorial staff guarantee scientific quality]. Milerad J; Ahlberg J; Bågedahl-Strindlund M; Eliasson M; Fridén B; Håkansson A; Sundberg CJ; Ostergren J Lakartidningen; 2003 Nov; 100(48):3934-6. PubMed ID: 14717088 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Cure the competency curse. Di Leonardi BC J Contin Educ Nurs; 2015 Jan; 46(1):3-4. PubMed ID: 25647311 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Editorial misconduct. Smith R BMJ; 2003 Jun; 326(7401):1224-5. PubMed ID: 12791712 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Politics and peer review. Magnus D Am J Bioeth; 2004; 4(1):7-8. PubMed ID: 15035920 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Peer review and competence in ministry. Piacitelli HJ; Wilcox JM Bull Am Protestant Hosp Assoc; 1979; 43(2):67-71. PubMed ID: 10246586 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. The role of peer review in FPM. Backer LA Fam Pract Manag; 2012; 19(6):4. PubMed ID: 23317119 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. AJIC's peer review process: striving for ever-increasing excellence. Bunner C; Larson EL Am J Infect Control; 2013 Feb; 41(2):96. PubMed ID: 23369313 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Ethics of guidelines for reviewers of medical manuscripts. Minion D; Sorial E; Endean E J Vasc Surg; 2007 Aug; 46(2):391-3. PubMed ID: 17664118 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. A proposal for an 'equal peer-review' statement. Moustafa K Trends Pharmacol Sci; 2015 Aug; 36(8):494-5. PubMed ID: 26112779 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Responding to peer reviews: pointers that authors don't learn in school. Algase DL Res Theory Nurs Pract; 2008; 22(4):219-21. PubMed ID: 19093658 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Meeting our ethical obligations in medical publishing: responsibilities of editors, authors, and readers of peer-reviewed journals. Albert DM; Liesegang TJ; Schachat AP Arch Ophthalmol; 2005 May; 123(5):684-6. PubMed ID: 15883290 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. The gauntlet of peer review. Toomasian JM Perfusion; 2013 Sep; 28(5):376. PubMed ID: 23963954 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Training and experience of peer reviewers: an additional variable to consider. Kulstad E PLoS Med; 2007 Mar; 4(3):e143; author reply e145. PubMed ID: 17388681 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Getting to know you: performance articles and the peer review process. Grant A J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs; 2011 Nov; 18(9):833-6. PubMed ID: 21985686 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Blind no more. Berg TD; Irwin CE J Adolesc Health; 2009 Jul; 45(1):7. PubMed ID: 19541244 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]