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.
128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3370379)
1. Peer review and the evaluation of manuscripts. Crawford S Bull Med Libr Assoc; 1988 Jan; 76(1):75-7. PubMed ID: 3370379 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Peer review time: how late is late in a small medical journal? Kljaković-Gaspić M; Hren D; Marusić A; Marusić M Arch Med Res; 2003; 34(5):439-43. PubMed ID: 14602513 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. On bargains .. Diers D Image J Nurs Sch; 1990; 22(1):2. PubMed ID: 2318490 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. [Lakartidningen's scrutiny routines--equal to the heavies. The peer review system and the expert editorial staff guarantee scientific quality]. Milerad J; Ahlberg J; Bågedahl-Strindlund M; Eliasson M; Fridén B; Håkansson A; Sundberg CJ; Ostergren J Lakartidningen; 2003 Nov; 100(48):3934-6. PubMed ID: 14717088 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Lesson from fate of rejected paper. Wiwanitkit V Indian Pediatr; 2011 May; 48(5):410. PubMed ID: 21654014 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. [Peer review of scientific manuscripts should be open and referees' bias should be accounted for]. Thörn A Lakartidningen; 2004 Oct; 101(44):3458. PubMed ID: 15560663 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. [Electronic manuscripts: the periodicals earn money, the referees pay]. Kelly KB Lakartidningen; 2005 Mar 14-20; 102(11):888. PubMed ID: 15835532 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Search, strategy, policy and provision. Grant MJ Health Info Libr J; 2009 Dec; 26(4):259. PubMed ID: 19930473 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection. Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Guidance or misleading--what do Ugeskriftet's medical editors do?]. Jacobsen GK Ugeskr Laeger; 2010 Nov; 172(47):3281; discussion 3281. PubMed ID: 21140607 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. [Tidsskriftet, peer review and medical publishing]. Bjørheim J; Frich JC; Gjersvik P; Jacobsen G; Swensen E Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2006 Jan; 126(1):20-3. PubMed ID: 16397649 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Peer review and the fate of manuscripts. Frey JJ Fam Med; 1985; 17(1):3. PubMed ID: 3843084 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Submitting a manuscript to the ASRT. Frosch JR Radiol Technol; 2012; 83(3):291-2. PubMed ID: 22267696 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. A review of peer review. Manske PR J Hand Surg Am; 1997 Sep; 22(5):767-71. PubMed ID: 9410930 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Scientific creativity, pathological science, and the gauntlet of review. Yates FE Am J Physiol; 1979 Jan; 236(1):R1-3. PubMed ID: 434181 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. [Peer review: a closed system in need of reform]. Thörn A Lakartidningen; 2002 Jul; 99(30-31):3106-8. PubMed ID: 12198928 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Should the Ugeskrift take in secondary publications without independent peer reviews?]. Hjøllund NH Ugeskr Laeger; 2006 Aug; 168(33):2687; author reply 2687. PubMed ID: 16953547 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Review criteria for research manuscripts. Bordage G; Caelleigh AS; Steinecke A; Bland CJ; Crandall SJ; McGaghie WC; Pangaro LN; Penn G; Regehr G; Shea JS; Acad Med; 2001 Sep; 76(9):897-978. PubMed ID: 11565558 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Fair and fast reviews. Morse JM Qual Health Res; 2004 Nov; 14(9):1175-6. PubMed ID: 15448293 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]