231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27159173)
1. Peer review in hematopoietic cell transplantation: are we doing our fair share?
Giralt S; Korngold R; Lazarus HM
Bone Marrow Transplant; 2016 Sep; 51(9):1159-62. PubMed ID: 27159173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Enhancements in peer review of manuscripts by the Journal.
Liesegang TJ
Am J Ophthalmol; 2014 Jul; 158(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 24929824
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Peer review practices in biomedical literature: a time for change?
Mahawar KK; Kejariwal D; Malviya A; Birla R; Viswanath YK
Asian J Surg; 2009 Oct; 32(4):240-6. PubMed ID: 19892628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Making the First Cut: An Analysis of Academic Medicine Editors' Reasons for Not Sending Manuscripts Out for External Peer Review.
Meyer HS; Durning SJ; Sklar DP; Maggio LA
Acad Med; 2018 Mar; 93(3):464-470. PubMed ID: 28767495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A retrospective study investigating requests for self-citation during open peer review in a general medicine journal.
Peebles E; Scandlyn M; Hesp BR
PLoS One; 2020; 15(8):e0237804. PubMed ID: 32817699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives.
Bunner C; Larson EL
Am J Infect Control; 2012 Oct; 40(8):701-4. PubMed ID: 23021414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluating the surgery literature: can standardizing peer-review today predict manuscript impact tomorrow?
Sosa JA; Mehta P; Thomas DC; Berland G; Gross C; McNamara RL; Rosenthal R; Udelsman R; Bravata DM; Roman SA
Ann Surg; 2009 Jul; 250(1):152-8. PubMed ID: 19561471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Peering into peer review: Galileo, ESP, Dr Scott Reuben, and advancing our professional evolution.
Biddle C
AANA J; 2011 Oct; 79(5):365-6. PubMed ID: 23256263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Some thoughts on peer review. Authors reply.
Candal-Pedreira C; Ruano-Ravina A; Pérez-Ríos M; Rey-Brandariz J
An Pediatr (Engl Ed); 2024 Apr; 100(4):312-313. PubMed ID: 38519298
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions.
Sweitzer BJ; Cullen DJ
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):152-3. PubMed ID: 8015130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts.
Garfunkel JM; Lawson EE; Hamrick HJ; Ulshen MH
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1376-8. PubMed ID: 2304217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences.
Miller E; James Weightman M; Basu A; Amos A; Brakoulias V
Australas Psychiatry; 2024 Jun; 32(3):247-251. PubMed ID: 38327220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Rigorous Peer Review is Worth the Effort.
Kearney MH
Res Nurs Health; 2016 Dec; 39(6):393-395. PubMed ID: 27740694
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Peer review to ensure quality in forensic mental health publication.
Felthous AR; Wettstein RM
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2014; 42(3):305-14. PubMed ID: 25187283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Perceived value of providing peer reviewers with abstracts and preprints of related published and unpublished papers.
Hatch CL; Goodman SN
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):273-4. PubMed ID: 9676679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Fraud and misconduct in scientific publications].
Matías-Guiu J; García-Ramos R
Neurologia; 2010; 25(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 20388454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [A guide to the peer review of scientific papers].
Giunta RE; Prommersberger KJ
Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir; 2012 Aug; 44(4):193-7. PubMed ID: 22836956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Preserving blind peer review of electronic manuscript files.
Jacobson AF; Schmidt K; Coeling H
Nurse Author Ed; 2005; 15(1):1-4, 7. PubMed ID: 15739759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
