296 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27734643)
1. Satisfying Doubters and Critics: Dealing with the Peer Review.
Bavdekar SB
J Assoc Physicians India; 2016 Apr; 64(4):66-69. PubMed ID: 27734643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Write a scientific paper (WASP): Editor's perspective of submissions and dealing with editors.
Cuschieri S; Vassallo J
Early Hum Dev; 2019 Feb; 129():93-95. PubMed ID: 30578111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Surviving peer review.
Weinstein R
J Clin Apher; 2020 Sep; 35(5):469-476. PubMed ID: 32770560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Responding to reviewers' comments as part of writing for publication.
Happell B
Nurse Res; 2011; 18(4):23-7. PubMed ID: 21853889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors.
O'Brien BC; Artino AR; Costello JA; Driessen E; Maggio LA
PLoS One; 2021; 16(11):e0260558. PubMed ID: 34843564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.
Cejas C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1181-1184. PubMed ID: 28350482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Manuscript rejection: how to submit a revision and tips on being a good peer reviewer.
Kotsis SV; Chung KC
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2014 Apr; 133(4):958-964. PubMed ID: 24675196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Getting published well requires fulfilling editors' and reviewers' needs and desires.
Schoenwolf GC
Dev Growth Differ; 2013 Dec; 55(9):735-43. PubMed ID: 24131034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
Polak JF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):685-8. PubMed ID: 7645496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
Earnshaw JJ; Farndon JR; Guillou PJ; Johnson CD; Murie JA; Murray GD
Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2000 Apr; 82(4 Suppl):133-5. PubMed ID: 10889776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.
Shattell MM; Chinn P; Thomas SP; Cowling WR
J Nurs Scholarsh; 2010 Mar; 42(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20487187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. [Improvement and decision-making process of an article].
Matías-Guiu J; García Ramos R
Neurologia; 2009; 24(6):353-8. PubMed ID: 19798600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
