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.
88 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28220948)
1. Loose ends 1: Limiting manuscript revision by optimal presentation of the core story. Moore A Bioessays; 2017 Mar; 39(3):. PubMed ID: 28220948 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Loose ends 3: How editors can help limit manuscript revision. Moore A Bioessays; 2017 May; 39(5):. PubMed ID: 28378940 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. How to Review a Manuscript. Hill JA J Electrocardiol; 2016; 49(2):109-11. PubMed ID: 26850498 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. How a submitted manuscript is processed. Peh WC; Ng KH Singapore Med J; 2009 Sep; 50(9):853-5; quiz 856. PubMed ID: 19787169 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reviewer assistance: focus on comments to authors and manuscript decisions. Berquist TH AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Oct; 203(4):697-8. PubMed ID: 25247932 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. [Issues about on-line manuscript submission and evaluation]. Ağildere AM Tani Girisim Radyol; 2004 Sep; 10(3):175-7. PubMed ID: 15470616 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Authors' financial interests should be made known to manuscript reviewers. de Melo-Martín I; Intemann K Nature; 2007 Jul; 448(7150):129. PubMed ID: 17625543 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. How to review a manuscript: a "down-to-earth" approach. Roberts LW; Coverdale J; Edenharder K; Louie A Acad Psychiatry; 2004; 28(2):81-7. PubMed ID: 15298858 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes. Fox MF J Higher Educ; 1994; 65(3):298-309. PubMed ID: 11653366 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Politics and peer review. Magnus D Am J Bioeth; 2004; 4(1):7-8. PubMed ID: 15035920 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Editors, midwives and peer review. Freshwater D J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs; 2007 Oct; 14(7):623-4. PubMed ID: 17880655 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The role of peer review in FPM. Backer LA Fam Pract Manag; 2012; 19(6):4. PubMed ID: 23317119 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Editorial. Paulus W Acta Neuropathol; 2005 Jan; 109(1):3-4. PubMed ID: 15645258 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Unjustified restrictions on letters to the editor. Altman DG PLoS Med; 2005 May; 2(5):e126; discussion e152. PubMed ID: 15916464 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Publication criteria and recommended areas of improvement within school psychology journals as reported by editors, journal board members, and manuscript authors. Albers CA; Floyd RG; Fuhrmann MJ; Martínez RS J Sch Psychol; 2011 Dec; 49(6):669-89. PubMed ID: 22272792 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]