151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3257120)
1. Threats to the quality of peer-reviewed radiology journals: identification of the problem and possible solutions.
Berk RN
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1988 Jan; 150(1):19-21. PubMed ID: 3257120
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Electronic publishing in radiology: beginnings, current status, and expanding horizons.
Chew FS; Llewellyn K; Olsen KM
J Am Coll Radiol; 2004 Oct; 1(10):741-8. PubMed ID: 17411694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Why and how articles are accepted or rejected for publication in biomedical journals].
Trilla A
Med Clin (Barc); 1990 Dec; 95(19):732-4. PubMed ID: 2087121
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The pattern of publishing previously rejected articles in selected journals.
Whitman N; Eyre S
Fam Med; 1985; 17(1):26-8. PubMed ID: 3843082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Things We Learned Along the Way: Monitor and Measure.
Berquist TH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2019 Nov; 213(5):961-962. PubMed ID: 31638853
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Peering into the review process.
Nat Struct Biol; 2000 Dec; 7(12):1075-6. PubMed ID: 11101879
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. In the right place at the right time.
Hillman BJ
J Am Coll Radiol; 2010 Oct; 7(10):745. PubMed ID: 20889100
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Peer review and the fate of manuscripts.
Frey JJ
Fam Med; 1985; 17(1):3. PubMed ID: 3843084
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Editorial policy and the assessment of quality among medical journals.
Weller AC
Bull Med Libr Assoc; 1987 Oct; 75(4):310-6. PubMed ID: 3450342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The discourteous reviewer.
Leviton A
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 2007 Jan; 21(1):2-4. PubMed ID: 17239173
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Perfecting peer review?
Nat Med; 2011 Jan; 17(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 21217648
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. How does peer review work?
Aaron L
Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Quotation accuracy: fact or fiction?
Putterman C
Isr J Med Sci; 1992 Jul; 28(7):465-70. PubMed ID: 1506172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process.
Giles J
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):252. PubMed ID: 16421533
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. [Which scientific article is best qualified for publication?].
Barzilai M
Harefuah; 1997 Jul; 133(1-2):25-6. PubMed ID: 9332053
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. [Evaluation of social relevance of applied health research: a rough indicator may be the significance of publishing in national professional journals].
Bouter LM; Knottnerus JA
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2000 Jun; 144(24):1178-83. PubMed ID: 10876699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Harefuah peer review].
Shemer Y; Shoenfeld Y
Harefuah; 2001 May; 140(5):403-5. PubMed ID: 11419062
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Journals: how to decide what's worth publishing.
Jefferson T; Shashok K
Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):209-10. PubMed ID: 12529609
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. JHS guidelines on systematic review and meta-analysis submissions.
Chung KC
J Hand Surg Am; 2012 Jun; 37(6):1121-4. PubMed ID: 22624781
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Quotational and reference accuracy in surgical journals. A continuing peer review problem.
Evans JT; Nadjari HI; Burchell SA
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1353-4. PubMed ID: 2304213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
