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.
2. Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers. Hidouri S; Kamoun H; Salah S; Jellad A; Ben Saad H F1000Res; 2024; 13():921. PubMed ID: 39246824 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. JACLP Guide for Manuscript Peer Review: How to Perform a Peer Review and How to Be Responsive to Reviewer Comments. Oldham MA; Kontos N; Baller E; Cerimele JM J Acad Consult Liaison Psychiatry; 2023; 64(5):468-472. PubMed ID: 36796760 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Manuscript rejection: how to submit a revision and tips on being a good peer reviewer. Kotsis SV; Chung KC Plast Reconstr Surg; 2014 Apr; 133(4):958-964. PubMed ID: 24675196 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Satisfying Doubters and Critics: Dealing with the Peer Review. Bavdekar SB J Assoc Physicians India; 2016 Apr; 64(4):66-69. PubMed ID: 27734643 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors. O'Brien BC; Artino AR; Costello JA; Driessen E; Maggio LA PLoS One; 2021; 16(11):e0260558. PubMed ID: 34843564 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Responding to reviewers' comments as part of writing for publication. Happell B Nurse Res; 2011; 18(4):23-7. PubMed ID: 21853889 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? Kravitz RL; Franks P; Feldman MD; Gerrity M; Byrne C; Tierney WM PLoS One; 2010 Apr; 5(4):e10072. PubMed ID: 20386704 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. Justice AC; Cho MK; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Rennie D JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):240-2. PubMed ID: 9676668 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [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]
14. Variability of Reviewers' Comments in the Peer Review Process for Orthopaedic Research. Iantorno SE; Andras LM; Skaggs DL Spine Deform; 2016 Jul; 4(4):268-271. PubMed ID: 27927515 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Manuscript Development and Publishing: A 5-Step Approach. Downey SM; Geraci SA Am J Med Sci; 2017 Feb; 353(2):132-136. PubMed ID: 28183413 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Peer review? No thanks! Castelo-Branco C Climacteric; 2023 Feb; 26(1):3-4. PubMed ID: 36420749 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics. Bornmann L; Daniel HD PLoS One; 2010 Oct; 5(10):e13345. PubMed ID: 20976226 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]