242 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29079911)
1. 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]
2. [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]
3. Peer review at the Health Information and Libraries Journal.
Grant MJ
Health Info Libr J; 2014 Dec; 31(4):251-3. PubMed ID: 25443027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Preserving blind peer review of electronic manuscript files.
Jacobson AF; Schmidt K; Coeling H
Nurse Author Ed; 2005; 15(1):1-4, 7. PubMed ID: 15739759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?
Al-Khatib A; Teixeira da Silva JA
Sci Eng Ethics; 2019 Feb; 25(1):293-321. PubMed ID: 28905258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Ethical issues in studying submissions to a medical journal.
Olson CM; Glass RM; Thacker SB; Stroup DF
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):290-1. PubMed ID: 9676686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development.
Janke KK; Bzowyckyj AS; Traynor AP
Am J Pharm Educ; 2017 May; 81(4):73. PubMed ID: 28630514
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts.
Hausmann L; Schweitzer B; Middleton FA; Schulz JB
J Neurochem; 2018 Jan; ():. PubMed ID: 29377133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing.
Lipworth WL; Kerridge IH; Carter SM; Little M
Soc Sci Med; 2011 Apr; 72(7):1056-63. PubMed ID: 21388730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal.
Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC
Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Reviewer assistance: how important is the invitation letter?
Berquist TH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Sep; 203(3):467. PubMed ID: 25148147
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?
Teixeira da Silva JA; Al-Khatib A
Sci Eng Ethics; 2018 Feb; 24(1):275-285. PubMed ID: 28155093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?
D'Andrea R; O'Dwyer JP
PLoS One; 2017; 12(10):e0186111. PubMed ID: 29016678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
