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.
159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29850109)
1. Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals. Davis CH; Bass BL; Behrns KE; Lillemoe KD; Garden OJ; Roh MS; Lee JE; Balch CM; Aloia TA Res Integr Peer Rev; 2018; 3():4. PubMed ID: 29850109 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis. Herber OR; Bradbury-Jones C; Böling S; Combes S; Hirt J; Koop Y; Nyhagen R; Veldhuizen JD; Taylor J BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 May; 20(1):122. PubMed ID: 32423388 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals. Garcia-Costa D; Forte A; Lòpez-Iñesta E; Squazzoni F; Grimaldo F R Soc Open Sci; 2022 Sep; 9(9):210681. PubMed ID: 36117870 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Armstrong AW; Idriss SZ; Kimball AB; Bernhard JD J Am Acad Dermatol; 2008 Apr; 58(4):632-5. PubMed ID: 18249470 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices in Peer-reviewed Biomedical Journals. Cooper RJ; Gupta M; Wilkes MS; Hoffman JR J Gen Intern Med; 2006 Dec; 21(12):1248-52. PubMed ID: 17105524 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of Periodontal Diseases in Journal Abstracts-A Cross-sectional Survey and Bibliometric Analysis. Kumar S; Mohammad H; Vora H; Kar K J Evid Based Dent Pract; 2018 Jun; 18(2):130-141.e22. PubMed ID: 29747793 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study. Glonti K; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D BMJ Open; 2019 Nov; 9(11):e033421. PubMed ID: 31767597 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
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. A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals. Glonti K; Cauchi D; Cobo E; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D BMC Med; 2019 Jun; 17(1):118. PubMed ID: 31217033 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Statistical reviewing policies in dermatology journals: results of a questionnaire survey of editors. Katz KA; Crawford GH; Lu DW; Kantor J; Margolis DJ J Am Acad Dermatol; 2004 Aug; 51(2):234-40. PubMed ID: 15280842 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study. Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Biomedical journal speed and efficiency: a cross-sectional pilot survey of author experiences. Wallach JD; Egilman AC; Gopal AD; Swami N; Krumholz HM; Ross JS Res Integr Peer Rev; 2018; 3():1. PubMed ID: 29451557 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 journals. Teplitskiy M; Peng H; Blasco A; Lakhani KR Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2022 Nov; 119(47):e2118046119. PubMed ID: 36395142 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]