143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38835335)
1. How to be a good reviewer: A step-by-step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript.
Sedaghat AR; Bernal-Sprekelsen M; Fokkens WJ; Smith TL; Stewart MG; Johnson RF
Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol; 2024 Jun; 9(3):e1266. PubMed ID: 38835335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
[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. Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.
Parikh LI; Benner RS; Riggs TW; Hazen N; Chescheir NC
Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Feb; 129(2):243-248. PubMed ID: 28079780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Role of the manuscript reviewer.
Peh WC; Ng KH
Singapore Med J; 2009 Oct; 50(10):931-3; quiz 934. PubMed ID: 19907880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. An Introduction to Reviewing Research Articles for Academic Journals.
DeHart WB; Griffin E; Sundaram S; Wood BE; Flynn MG
HCA Healthc J Med; 2022; 3(6):355-362. PubMed ID: 37427314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. How to review a paper.
Benos DJ; Kirk KL; Hall JE
Adv Physiol Educ; 2003 Dec; 27(1-4):47-52. PubMed ID: 12760840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. How to review a scientific paper.
Tandon R
Asian J Psychiatr; 2014 Oct; 11():124-7. PubMed ID: 25248566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.
Callaham ML; Tercier J
PLoS Med; 2007 Jan; 4(1):e40. PubMed ID: 17411314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Tips and guidelines for being a good peer reviewer.
Gisbert JP; Chaparro M
Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2023 Mar; 46(3):215-235. PubMed ID: 35278500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals.
Davis CH; Bass BL; Behrns KE; Lillemoe KD; Garden OJ; Roh MS; Lee JE; Balch CM; Aloia TA
Res Integr Peer Rev; 2018; 3():4. PubMed ID: 29850109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Decline to Review a Manuscript: Insight and Implications for
Raniga SB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Apr; 214(4):723-726. PubMed ID: 31967499
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
