127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29310871)
1. What Does It Take to Change an Editor's Mind? Identifying Minimally Important Difference Thresholds for Peer Reviewer Rating Scores of Scientific Articles.
Callaham M; John LK
Ann Emerg Med; 2018 Sep; 72(3):314-318.e2. PubMed ID: 29310871
[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. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance.
Callaham ML; Wears RL; Waeckerle JF
Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Sep; 32(3 Pt 1):318-22. PubMed ID: 9737493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.
Etemadi A; Raiszadeh F; Alaeddini F; Azizi F
Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S29-33. PubMed ID: 14968189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A peek behind the curtain: peer review and editorial decision making at Stroke.
Sposato LA; Ovbiagele B; Johnston SC; Fisher M; Saposnik G;
Ann Neurol; 2014 Aug; 76(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 25043350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Peer review and editorial decision-making.
Howard L; Wilkinson G
Br J Psychiatry; 1998 Aug; 173():110-3; discussion 114-5. PubMed ID: 9850221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.
Galipeau J; Barbour V; Baskin P; Bell-Syer S; Cobey K; Cumpston M; Deeks J; Garner P; MacLehose H; Shamseer L; Straus S; Tugwell P; Wager E; Winker M; Moher D
BMC Med; 2016 Feb; 14():16. PubMed ID: 26837937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Characteristics of peer reviewed clinical medicine journals.
Eldredge J
Med Ref Serv Q; 1999; 18(2):13-26. PubMed ID: 10557841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Development and Validation of a Scoring Rubric for Editorial Evaluation of Peer-review Quality: A Pilot Study.
Love JN; Messman AM; Ilgen JS; Merritt C; Coates WC; Ander DS; Way DP
West J Emerg Med; 2024 Mar; 25(2):254-263. PubMed ID: 38596927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Acceptance or decline of requests to review manuscripts: A gender-based approach from a public health journal.
Felícitas Domínguez-Berjón M; Godoy P; Ruano-Ravina A; Negrín MÁ; Vives-Cases C; Álvarez-Dardet C; Bermúdez-Tamayo C; López MJ; Pérez G; Borrell C
Account Res; 2018; 25(2):94-108. PubMed ID: 29390914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender.
Wing DA; Benner RS; Petersen R; Newcomb R; Scott JR
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2010 Oct; 19(10):1919-23. PubMed ID: 20831430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.
Chauvin A; Ravaud P; Baron G; Barnes C; Boutron I
BMC Med; 2015 Jul; 13():158. PubMed ID: 26141137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [The percentage of articles which were accepted or rejected for publication in the Dutch Journal of Medicine in 1997].
Bloemenkamp DG; Hart W; Overbeke AJ
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Jan; 143(3):157-9. PubMed ID: 10086132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [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]
18. Peer review in a small and a big medical journal: case study of the Croatian Medical Journal and the Lancet.
Marusić A; Lukić IK; Marusić M; McNamee D; Sharp D; Horton R
Croat Med J; 2002 Jun; 43(3):286-9. PubMed ID: 12035133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
Frank E
Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.
Vintzileos AM; Ananth CV; Odibo AO; Chauhan SP; Smulian JC; Oyelese Y
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):703.e1-5. PubMed ID: 24983685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
