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.
239 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27257328)
41. Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors. Gollogly L; Momen H Rev Saude Publica; 2006 Aug; 40 Spec no.():24-9. PubMed ID: 16924299 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. The Game Between a Biased Reviewer and His Editor. García JA; Rodriguez-Sánchez R; Fdez-Valdivia J Sci Eng Ethics; 2019 Feb; 25(1):265-283. PubMed ID: 29079911 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Author perception of peer review. Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors. Resnik DB; Elmore SA Sci Eng Ethics; 2016 Feb; 22(1):169-88. PubMed ID: 25633924 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: 2017/2018 in review. Manning WJ J Cardiovasc Magn Reson; 2019 Dec; 21(1):79. PubMed ID: 31884956 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Black N; Smith R BMJ; 1999 Jan; 318(7175):23-7. PubMed ID: 9872878 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal. Frank E Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. Godlee F JAMA; 2002 Jun; 287(21):2762-5. PubMed ID: 12038905 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Conflicts of interest in medical science: peer usage, peer review and 'CoI consultancy'. Charlton BG Med Hypotheses; 2004; 63(2):181-6. PubMed ID: 15236772 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Communities of Practice in Peer Review: Outlining a Group Review Process. Nagler A; Ovitsh R; Dumenco L; Whicker S; Engle DL; Goodell K Acad Med; 2019 Oct; 94(10):1437-1442. PubMed ID: 31135399 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Claxton LD Mutat Res; 2005 Jan; 589(1):17-30. PubMed ID: 15652224 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. 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]
55. Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychiatry journals: what editors and reviewers want authors to know. Harris AH; Reeder R; Hyun JK J Psychiatr Res; 2009 Oct; 43(15):1231-4. PubMed ID: 19435635 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. 'How to count sperm properly': checklist for acceptability of studies based on human semen analysis. Björndahl L; Barratt CL; Mortimer D; Jouannet P Hum Reprod; 2016 Feb; 31(2):227-32. PubMed ID: 26682580 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. How to review journal manuscripts. Rosenfeld RM Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2010 Apr; 142(4):472-86. PubMed ID: 20304264 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. 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]