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.
3. The Third Pillar. Sedlak D Environ Sci Technol; 2015 Oct; 49(20):11991-2. PubMed ID: 26424210 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Ethics and Oversight in Publication. Pollock NW Wilderness Environ Med; 2016 Dec; 27(4):449. PubMed ID: 27912862 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Peer review: does it work? Nahai F Aesthet Surg J; 2010 Jan; 30(1):110-1. PubMed ID: 20442084 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Demystifying the Peer-Review Process for HERD. Stichler JF HERD; 2017 Apr; 10(3):7-11. PubMed ID: 28335631 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Peer review: A critical step in the editorial process. Agrawal R Indian J Pathol Microbiol; 2020; 63(3):347-349. PubMed ID: 32769320 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. A how-to for peer review. Abbott A Nature; 2011 May; 473(7345):17. PubMed ID: 21544122 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Peer review conflicts of interest surface at CIHR. Webster PC CMAJ; 2015 Mar; 187(5):313. PubMed ID: 25691785 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer. Faggion CM Br Dent J; 2016 Feb; 220(4):167-8. PubMed ID: 26917302 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comments on the article by Araújo: are the criteria for peer review and publication clear? Benchimol-Barbosa PR Arq Bras Cardiol; 2012 Jul; 99(1):676; author reply 677. PubMed ID: 22948304 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Why we need a golden rule for peer review. Tuckett AG; Kangasniemi M Nurs Ethics; 2017 Dec; 24(8):875-877. PubMed ID: 29224549 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. QnAs with Subra Suresh. Interview by Prashant Nair. Suresh S Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2012 Oct; 109(40):15969. PubMed ID: 22984183 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. A commentary on the process of peer review and pathology data locking. McKay JS; Barale-Thomas E; Bolon B; George C; Hardisty J; Manabe S; Schorsch F; Teranishi M; Weber K Toxicol Pathol; 2010 Apr; 38(3):508-10. PubMed ID: 20237370 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Peer review: inter-reviewer agreement during evaluation of research grant applications. Wiener SL; Urivetzky M; Bregman D; Cohen J; Eich R; Gootman N; Gulotta S; Taylor B; Tuttle R; Webb W; Wright J Clin Res; 1977 Dec; 25(5):306-11. PubMed ID: 10304719 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. A commentary on the process of peer review and pathology data locking. McKay JS; Barale-Thomas E; Bolon B; George C; Hardisty J; Manabe S; Schorsch F; Teranishi M; Weber K Exp Toxicol Pathol; 2011 Jan; 63(1-2):197-8. PubMed ID: 20727724 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Changes in applications for peer-reviewed CNE. Kroeger B Nebr Nurse; 2007; 40(2):8. PubMed ID: 17591426 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]