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.
4. Peer review processes at the Health Information and Libraries Journal. Grant MJ Health Info Libr J; 2018 Dec; 35(4):263-264. PubMed ID: 30499172 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Authors, reviewers and editors at The EMBO Journal. Rørth P EMBO J; 2005 Nov; 24(22):3831-3. PubMed ID: 16453402 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. [The manuscripts' review process in Revista Médica de Chile and its peer-reviewers during the year 2012]. Reyes B H; Andresen H M; Palma H J Rev Med Chil; 2013 Jul; 141(7):903-8. PubMed ID: 24356739 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Peer review under the microscope: an editor's view. Chan DL J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio); 2011 Oct; 21(5):453-7. PubMed ID: 22316192 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Our editorial process--some experiences and reflections. Emmelin M; Wall S Scand J Public Health; 2003; 31(3):161-8. PubMed ID: 12850969 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Peer review: a castle built on sand or the bedrock of scientific publishing? Berger E Ann Emerg Med; 2006 Feb; 47(2):157-9. PubMed ID: 16435419 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Peer Review of a Manuscript Submission: A How-To Guide for Effective and Efficient Commentary. Allen LA; Ho PM Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes; 2017 Dec; 10(12):. PubMed ID: 29237748 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Publication of RadioGraphics manuscripts: guidelines for authors and description of solicitation process and peer review. Klein JS; Harmon SP; Radiographics; 2012; 32(1):3-8. PubMed ID: 22236890 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. A new Editorial Board of Monaldi archives for chest disease. Spanevello A; Balbi B Monaldi Arch Chest Dis; 2004; 61(1):2-3. PubMed ID: 15366328 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Training and experience of peer reviewers: is being a "good reviewer" a persistent quality? García-Doval I PLoS Med; 2007 Mar; 4(3):e144; author reply e145. PubMed ID: 17388682 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Submission of articles to Vaccine: a fast and fair peer review process. de Hon F; Poland GA Vaccine; 2013 Jul; 31(32):3207-8. PubMed ID: 23726824 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Landmark, landmine, or landfill? The role of peer review in assessing manuscripts. Balistreri WF J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):107-8. PubMed ID: 17643754 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Open access under scrutiny. Samkange-Zeeb F; Zeeb H J Radiol Prot; 2013 Dec; 33(4):885-6. PubMed ID: 24285443 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]