168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37314363)
1. Strategies for Developing Journal Peer Reviewers: A Scoping Review.
Gazza EA; Matthias AD; Griffin J; Chick K
Nurs Educ Perspect; 2024 Mar-Apr 01; 45(2):93-99. PubMed ID: 37314363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.
Glonti K; Cauchi D; Cobo E; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
BMJ Open; 2017 Oct; 7(10):e017468. PubMed ID: 29061619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.
Osborne SR; Alston LV; Bolton KA; Whelan J; Reeve E; Wong Shee A; Browne J; Walker T; Versace VL; Allender S; Nichols M; Backholer K; Goodwin N; Lewis S; Dalton H; Prael G; Curtin M; Brooks R; Verdon S; Crockett J; Hodgins G; Walsh S; Lyle DM; Thompson SC; Browne LJ; Knight S; Pit SW; Jones M; Gillam MH; Leach MJ; Gonzalez-Chica DA; Muyambi K; Eshetie T; Tran K; May E; Lieschke G; Parker V; Smith A; Hayes C; Dunlop AJ; Rajappa H; White R; Oakley P; Holliday S
Med J Aust; 2020 Dec; 213 Suppl 11():S3-S32.e1. PubMed ID: 33314144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.
Glonti K; Cauchi D; Cobo E; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
BMC Med; 2019 Jun; 17(1):118. PubMed ID: 31217033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Common content, delivery modes and outcome measures for faculty development programs in nursing and midwifery: A scoping review.
Smith RM; Gray JE; Homer CSE
Nurse Educ Pract; 2023 Jul; 70():103648. PubMed ID: 37121027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Student and educator experiences of maternal-child simulation-based learning: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol.
MacKinnon K; Marcellus L; Rivers J; Gordon C; Ryan M; Butcher D
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 Jan; 13(1):14-26. PubMed ID: 26447004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Formative peer assessment in higher healthcare education programmes: a scoping review.
Stenberg M; Mangrio E; Bengtsson M; Carlson E
BMJ Open; 2021 Feb; 11(2):e045345. PubMed ID: 33563627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. How are we assessing near-peer teaching in undergraduate health professional education? A systematic review.
Irvine S; Williams B; McKenna L
Nurse Educ Today; 2017 Mar; 50():42-50. PubMed ID: 28012361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Near-peer teaching in undergraduate nurse education: An integrative review.
Irvine S; Williams B; McKenna L
Nurse Educ Today; 2018 Nov; 70():60-68. PubMed ID: 30145536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Manuscript review continuing medical education: a retrospective investigation of the learning outcomes from this peer reviewer benefit.
Kawczak S; Mustafa S
BMJ Open; 2020 Nov; 10(11):e039687. PubMed ID: 33234636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Taxonomy of teaching methods and their use in health professions education: a scoping review protocol.
Mitchell S; Sehlbach C; Franssen GHL; Janczukowicz J; Guttormsen S
BMJ Open; 2024 Jan; 14(1):e077282. PubMed ID: 38245012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals.
Azer SA; Ramani S; Peterson R
Med Teach; 2012; 34(9):698-704. PubMed ID: 22643022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Discovering the Benefits of Group Peer Review of Submitted Manuscripts.
Richards BF; Cardell EM; Chow CJ; Moore KB; Moorman KL; O'Connor M; Hart SE
Teach Learn Med; 2020; 32(1):104-109. PubMed ID: 31545096
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Shared Learning Utilizing Digital Methods in Surgery to Enhance Transparency in Surgical Innovation: Protocol for a Scoping Review.
Hoffmann C; Kobetic M; Alford N; Blencowe N; Ramirez J; Macefield R; Blazeby JM; Avery KNL; Potter S
JMIR Res Protoc; 2022 Sep; 11(9):e37544. PubMed ID: 36074555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Consumer involvement in university education programs in the nursing, midwifery, and allied health professions: a systematic scoping review.
Soon YE; Murray CM; Aguilar A; Boshoff K
Int J Nurs Stud; 2020 Sep; 109():103619. PubMed ID: 32531570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Peer assessment practices in nurse education: An integrative review.
Tornwall J
Nurse Educ Today; 2018 Dec; 71():266-275. PubMed ID: 30268697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Student and educator experiences of maternal-child simulation-based learning: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.
MacKinnon K; Marcellus L; Rivers J; Gordon C; Ryan M; Butcher D
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2017 Nov; 15(11):2666-2706. PubMed ID: 29135750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
