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.
104 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28986098)
21. Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers. Shopovski J; Bolek C; Bolek M Sci Eng Ethics; 2020 Apr; 26(2):709-726. PubMed ID: 31209769 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Effects of reviewers' gender on assessments of a gender-related standardized manuscript. Caelleigh AS; Hojat M; Steinecke A; Gonnella JS Teach Learn Med; 2003; 15(3):163-7. PubMed ID: 12855386 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Influence of reviewers' clinical backgrounds on interpretation of confocal laser endomicroscopy findings. Kobayashi M; Neumann H; Hino S; Vieth M; Abe S; Nakai Y; Nakajima K; Kiesslich R; Hirooka S; Sumiyama K Endoscopy; 2016 Jun; 48(6):521-9. PubMed ID: 26862845 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The Real Secret to Getting Published: Responding to Reviewers. Clark PC; Spratling R; Aycock DM; Marcus J J Pediatr Health Care; 2023; 37(5):570-574. PubMed ID: 37354156 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. A Matter of Reevaluation: Incentivizing Users to Contribute Reviews in Online Platforms. Zhang M; Wei X; Zeng DD Decis Support Syst; 2020 Jan; 128():. PubMed ID: 31920212 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Characteristics of 'mega' peer-reviewers. Rice DB; Pham B; Presseau J; Tricco AC; Moher D Res Integr Peer Rev; 2022 Feb; 7(1):1. PubMed ID: 35189977 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The Effect of Reviewers' Self-Disclosure of Personal Review Record on Consumer Purchase Decisions: An ERPs Investigation. Liu J; Mo Z; Fu H; Wei W; Song L; Luo K Front Psychol; 2020; 11():609538. PubMed ID: 33488474 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Open research practices: unintended consequences and suggestions for averting them. (Commentary on the Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative). Bishop DV R Soc Open Sci; 2016 Apr; 3(4):160109. PubMed ID: 27152225 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Maximum likelihood estimation of reviewers' acumen in central review setting: categorical data. Zhao W; Boyett JM; Kocak M; Ellison DW; Wu Y Theor Biol Med Model; 2011 Mar; 8():3. PubMed ID: 21439071 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Can Sex and Seniority Predict the Quality of a Journal Reviewer's Manuscript Critique? Jamorabo DS; Deek MP; Yom SS; Rehman H; Zietman AL; Motwani SB; Briggs WM; Kim S; Chang DT; Jabbour SK Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2021 Oct; 111(2):312-316. PubMed ID: 34044095 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers' to authors' assessments. Lo CK; Mertz D; Loeb M BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Apr; 14():45. PubMed ID: 24690082 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]