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.
112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 434181)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Publication of RadioGraphics manuscripts: guidelines for authors and description of solicitation process and peer review. Klein JS; Harmon SP; Radiographics; 2012; 32(1):3-8. PubMed ID: 22236890 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Peer review. A view from another pier. Vaisrub S Arch Intern Med; 1978 Feb; 138(2):197. PubMed ID: 626548 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The fate of manuscripts rejected from Anaesthesia. Docherty AB; Klein AA Anaesthesia; 2017 Apr; 72(4):427-430. PubMed ID: 28168693 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. On bargains .. Diers D Image J Nurs Sch; 1990; 22(1):2. PubMed ID: 2318490 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-reviewed journals in 2012. Lamb CR; Adams CA Equine Vet J; 2015 Nov; 47(6):736-40. PubMed ID: 25302854 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [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]
11. Submitting a manuscript to the ASRT. Frosch JR Radiol Technol; 2012; 83(3):291-2. PubMed ID: 22267696 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Standing up for the professionalism of peer reviewers of plastic surgery manuscripts. Prado A; Andrades P Plast Reconstr Surg; 2009 Dec; 124(6):2185-2186. PubMed ID: 19952679 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Lesson from fate of rejected paper. Wiwanitkit V Indian Pediatr; 2011 May; 48(5):410. PubMed ID: 21654014 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The gauntlet of peer review. Toomasian JM Perfusion; 2013 Sep; 28(5):376. PubMed ID: 23963954 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Message from the Editor in Chief. Neurol Sci; 2016 Jan; 37(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 26705249 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. [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]
18. The process of peer review of scientific manuscripts. Williams E JAMA; 1988 Sep 23-30; 260(12):1761. PubMed ID: 3411759 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. [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]
20. Writing Author Response Letters That Get Editors to "Yes". Sullivan GM; Simpson D; Yarris LM; Artino AR J Grad Med Educ; 2019 Apr; 11(2):119-123. PubMed ID: 31024639 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]