148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31835023)
1. Universal Principled Review: A Community-Driven Method to Improve Peer Review.
Krummel M; Blish C; Kuhns M; Cadwell K; Oberst A; Goldrath A; Ansel KM; Chi H; O'Connell R; Wherry EJ; Pepper M;
Cell; 2019 Dec; 179(7):1441-1445. PubMed ID: 31835023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences.
Miller E; James Weightman M; Basu A; Amos A; Brakoulias V
Australas Psychiatry; 2024 Jun; 32(3):247-251. PubMed ID: 38327220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Can scientific quality be quantified?
Loscalzo J
Circulation; 2011 Mar; 123(9):947-50. PubMed ID: 21382902
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
Eur Psychiatry; 2009 Mar; 24(2):69-70. PubMed ID: 19248983
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer.
Faggion CM
Br Dent J; 2016 Feb; 220(4):167-8. PubMed ID: 26917302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Peer review of biomedical manuscripts: an update.
Ludbrook J
J Clin Neurosci; 2003 Sep; 10(5):540-2. PubMed ID: 12948455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The peer review process: a primer for
Hirsch JA; Manchikanti L; Albuquerque FC; Leslie-Mazwi TM; Lev MH; Linfante I; Mocco J; Rai AT; Schaefer PW; Tarr RW
J Neurointerv Surg; 2017 Jul; 9(e1):e3-e6. PubMed ID: 25888447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research.
Superchi C; Hren D; Blanco D; Rius R; Recchioni A; Boutron I; González JA
BMJ Open; 2020 Jun; 10(6):e035604. PubMed ID: 32518211
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Peer review--the newcomers' perspective.
Mainguy G; Motamedi MR; Mietchen D
PLoS Biol; 2005 Sep; 3(9):e326. PubMed ID: 16149851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Peer review of the biomedical literature.
Olson CM
Am J Emerg Med; 1990 Jul; 8(4):356-8. PubMed ID: 2194471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Medical journal peer review: process and bias.
Manchikanti L; Kaye AD; Boswell MV; Hirsch JA
Pain Physician; 2015; 18(1):E1-E14. PubMed ID: 25675064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
McNutt RA; Evans AT; Fletcher RH; Fletcher SW
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1371-6. PubMed ID: 2304216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The art and science of scientific writing.
Mestres CA; Sampathkumar A
Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann; 2019 Jun; 27(5):335-337. PubMed ID: 31188675
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Registered reports: prospective peer review emphasizes science over spin.
Wilkinson J; Pellicer A; Niederberger C
Fertil Steril; 2019 May; 111(5):831-832. PubMed ID: 30955845
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.
Smith R
J R Soc Med; 2006 Apr; 99(4):178-82. PubMed ID: 16574968
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Taking advantage of unexpected WebCONSORT results.
Cobo E; González JA
BMC Med; 2016 Dec; 14(1):204. PubMed ID: 27915997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Submission of articles to Vaccine: a fast and fair peer review process.
de Hon F; Poland GA
Vaccine; 2013 Jul; 31(32):3207-8. PubMed ID: 23726824
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. [The "peer-review" process in biomedical journals: characteristics of "Elite" reviewers].
Alfonso F
Neurologia; 2010; 25(9):521-9. PubMed ID: 21093700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Authors, reviewers and editors at The EMBO Journal.
Rørth P
EMBO J; 2005 Nov; 24(22):3831-3. PubMed ID: 16453402
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. How does peer review work?
Aaron L
Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
