158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38099716)
1. The inaugural
Adinortey CA; Dolan SK; Doore S; Lijek R; Pires DP; Yu W; Draganova EB; Schada von Borzyskowski L
mBio; 2024 Jan; 15(1):e0199123. PubMed ID: 38099716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Open peer review, pros and cons from the perspective of an early career researcher.
Henriquez T
mBio; 2023 Oct; 14(5):e0194823. PubMed ID: 37811986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A Learned Society's Perspective on Publishing.
Suzuki K; Edelson A; Iversen LL; Hausmann L; Schulz JB; Turner AJ
J Neurochem; 2016 Oct; 139 Suppl 2():17-23. PubMed ID: 27534728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Making the First Cut: An Analysis of Academic Medicine Editors' Reasons for Not Sending Manuscripts Out for External Peer Review.
Meyer HS; Durning SJ; Sklar DP; Maggio LA
Acad Med; 2018 Mar; 93(3):464-470. PubMed ID: 28767495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts.
McDowell GS; Knutsen JD; Graham JM; Oelker SK; Lijek RS
Elife; 2019 Oct; 8():. PubMed ID: 31668163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Conflicting interests involved in the process of publishing in biomedical journals.
Igi R
J BUON; 2015; 20(5):1373-7. PubMed ID: 26537088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Engaging the next generation of editorial talent through a hands-on fellowship model.
Deemer BR; Hotaling S; Poulson-Ellestad K; Falkenberg LJ; Cloern JE; Soranno PA
Ecol Lett; 2021 Jul; 24(7):1297-1301. PubMed ID: 33905592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Publication criteria and recommended areas of improvement within school psychology journals as reported by editors, journal board members, and manuscript authors.
Albers CA; Floyd RG; Fuhrmann MJ; Martínez RS
J Sch Psychol; 2011 Dec; 49(6):669-89. PubMed ID: 22272792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. How to be a good peer reviewer of scientific manuscripts.
Dhillon P
FEBS J; 2021 May; 288(9):2750-2756. PubMed ID: 33486891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Peer review? No thanks!
Castelo-Branco C
Climacteric; 2023 Feb; 26(1):3-4. PubMed ID: 36420749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Ponderings on peer review. Part 2. Manuscript critiques.
Seals DR
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol; 2023 Oct; 325(4):R309-R326. PubMed ID: 37519254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Surviving peer review.
Weinstein R
J Clin Apher; 2020 Sep; 35(5):469-476. PubMed ID: 32770560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Implementation of a novel learning experience in scientific writing, publishing, and peer review into a first year pharmacy practice residency.
Stark JE; Cole JL; Barnes LM; Chapman A; Costner M
J Am Pharm Assoc (2003); 2022; 62(3):840-844. PubMed ID: 34887188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?
Al-Khatib A; Teixeira da Silva JA
Sci Eng Ethics; 2019 Feb; 25(1):293-321. PubMed ID: 28905258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development.
Janke KK; Bzowyckyj AS; Traynor AP
Am J Pharm Educ; 2017 May; 81(4):73. PubMed ID: 28630514
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.
Dadkhah M; Kahani M; Borchardt G
Sci Eng Ethics; 2018 Oct; 24(5):1603-1610. PubMed ID: 28812275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The editors' labours: separating the wheat from the chaff.
Humphreys RP; Reigel DH; Epstein FJ
Pediatr Neurosurg; 1995; 22(5):223-7. PubMed ID: 7547452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
