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.
3. On the agreement between bibliometrics and peer review: Evidence from the Italian research assessment exercises. Baccini A; Barabesi L; De Nicolao G PLoS One; 2020; 15(11):e0242520. PubMed ID: 33206715 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. How to be a good peer reviewer of scientific manuscripts. Dhillon P FEBS J; 2021 May; 288(9):2750-2756. PubMed ID: 33486891 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evolutionary trends in peer review. Morey A; Garner A; Faruque F; Yang G J Allied Health; 2011; 40(3):156-60. PubMed ID: 21927782 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The first year of a new era. Behrens TE; Dalal Y; Harper DM; Weigel D Elife; 2024 Feb; 13():. PubMed ID: 38420960 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Funding should recognize the value of peer review. Dominiczak MH Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6919):111. PubMed ID: 12520276 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline? Ferreira C; Bastille-Rousseau G; Bennett AM; Ellington EH; Terwissen C; Austin C; Borlestean A; Boudreau MR; Chan K; Forsythe A; Hossie TJ; Landolt K; Longhi J; Otis JA; Peers MJ; Rae J; Seguin J; Watt C; Wehtje M; Murray DL Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc; 2016 Aug; 91(3):597-610. PubMed ID: 25865035 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The emerging landscape of scientific publishing. Fiala C; Diamandis EP Clin Biochem; 2017 Aug; 50(12):651-655. PubMed ID: 28434986 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Peer-review and publication of research protocols and proposals: a role for open access journals. Eysenbach G J Med Internet Res; 2004 Sep; 6(3):e37. PubMed ID: 15471763 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Pre-peer review, peer review, and post-peer review: three areas with potential for improvement. Stang A; Poole C; Schmidt-Pokrzywniak A J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Apr; 61(4):309-10. PubMed ID: 18313552 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Ancient texts to PubMed: a brief history of the peer-review process. Farrell PR; Magida Farrell L; Farrell MK J Perinatol; 2017 Jan; 37(1):13-15. PubMed ID: 27853323 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Peers review, editors decide, and then, what? Schachat AP Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Apr; 143(4):677-8. PubMed ID: 17386274 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Where next with peer-review? Maddox J Nature; 1989 May; 339(6219):11. PubMed ID: 2566119 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. A perspective on scientific peer review for informing regulatory decisions: making sure peer review makes a difference. Greenbaum D Risk Anal; 2006 Feb; 26(1):17-9. PubMed ID: 16492174 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Refereeing: What football can teach science. Sala A Nature; 2014 Dec; 516(7531):329. PubMed ID: 25519121 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Peer review: time for a change? Stamford JA Trends Pharmacol Sci; 1988 Jul; 9(7):234-5. PubMed ID: 3247675 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Playing the game of scientific publishing. Fiala C; Diamandis EP Clin Biochem; 2019 Nov; 73():118-120. PubMed ID: 31377346 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]