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.
3. 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]
4. CORP: Assessing author compliance with data presentation guidelines for manuscript figures. Keehan KH; Gaffney MC; Zucker IH Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol; 2020 May; 318(5):H1051-H1058. PubMed ID: 32196356 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. How to review a scientific paper. Tandon R Asian J Psychiatr; 2014 Oct; 11():124-7. PubMed ID: 25248566 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer. Faggion CM Br Dent J; 2016 Feb; 220(4):167-8. PubMed ID: 26917302 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review. Hesselberg JO; Dalsbø TK; Stromme H; Svege I; Fretheim A Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2023 Nov; 11(11):MR000056. PubMed ID: 38014743 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Using the peer review process to educate and empower emerging nurse scholars. Trotter TL J Prof Nurs; 2021; 37(2):488-492. PubMed ID: 33867109 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. Shattell MM; Chinn P; Thomas SP; Cowling WR J Nurs Scholarsh; 2010 Mar; 42(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20487187 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Who benefits from peer review? An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Loonen MP; Hage JJ; Kon M Plast Reconstr Surg; 2005 Oct; 116(5):1461-72; discussion 1473-5. PubMed ID: 16217496 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. How to be a Good Reviewer for a Scientific Journal. Siau K; Kulkarni AV; El-Omar E J Clin Exp Hepatol; 2022; 12(4):1238-1243. PubMed ID: 35814508 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process. Polak JF AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):685-8. PubMed ID: 7645496 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]