144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29780193)
1. Results Blind Science Publishing.
Locascio JJ
Basic Appl Soc Psych; 2017; 39(5):239-246. PubMed ID: 29780193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-reviewed journals in 2012.
Lamb CR; Adams CA
Equine Vet J; 2015 Nov; 47(6):736-40. PubMed ID: 25302854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Blind versus nonblind review: survey of selected medical journals.
Cleary JD; Alexander B
Drug Intell Clin Pharm; 1988; 22(7-8):601-2. PubMed ID: 3416750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Acceptance rate and reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound during 2012.
Lamb CR; Mai W
Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2015; 56(1):103-8. PubMed ID: 24798652
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The art and science of reviewing manuscripts for orthopaedic journals: Part II. Optimizing the manuscript: practical hints for improving the quality of reviews.
Levine AM; Heckman JD; Hensinger RN
Instr Course Lect; 2004; 53():689-97. PubMed ID: 15116659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.
Cejas C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1181-1184. PubMed ID: 28350482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [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]
12. Problems identified by secondary review of accepted manuscripts.
Garfunkel JM; Ulshen MH; Hamrick HJ; Lawson EE
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1369-71. PubMed ID: 2304215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Are highly ranked dental journals at risk of editorial bias? An examination of information on the reporting of peer-review practices.
Faggion CM
Account Res; 2023 Dec; 30(7):459-470. PubMed ID: 35016571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Role of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journals.
van Lent M; Overbeke J; Out HJ
PLoS One; 2014; 9(8):e104846. PubMed ID: 25118182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports.
Bordage G
Acad Med; 2001 Sep; 76(9):889-96. PubMed ID: 11553504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003.
Liesegang TJ; Shaikh M; Crook JE
Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Apr; 143(4):551-60. PubMed ID: 17276380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Publishers: Save Authors' Time.
Moustafa K
Sci Eng Ethics; 2018 Apr; 24(2):815-816. PubMed ID: 28155095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.
Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Berlin JA; Callaham ML
Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Sep; 32(3 Pt 1):310-7. PubMed ID: 9737492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. What happens to medical articles submitted in Spanish that are not accepted for publication?
Matías-Guiu JA; García-Ramos R; Castellanos M; Martínez-Vila E; Matías-Guiu J
Neurologia; 2013 May; 28(4):205-11. PubMed ID: 22795919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
