194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8015119)
1. Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality?
Justice AC; Berlin JA; Fletcher SW; Fletcher RH; Goodman SN
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):117-9. PubMed ID: 8015119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
Justice AC; Cho MK; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Rennie D
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):240-2. PubMed ID: 9676668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial.
Cobo E; Selva-O'Callagham A; Ribera JM; Cardellach F; Dominguez R; Vilardell M
PLoS One; 2007 Mar; 2(3):e332. PubMed ID: 17389922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Poor title--poor manuscript?
Gjersvik P; Gulbrandsen P; Aasheim ET; Nylenna M
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2013 Dec; 133(23-24):2475-7. PubMed ID: 24326496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine.
Goodman SN; Berlin J; Fletcher SW; Fletcher RH
Ann Intern Med; 1994 Jul; 121(1):11-21. PubMed ID: 8198342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review.
Herron DM
Surg Endosc; 2012 Aug; 26(8):2275-80. PubMed ID: 22350231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.
Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Berlin JA; Callaham ML
Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Sep; 32(3 Pt 1):310-7. PubMed ID: 9737492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
Enquselassie F
Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study.
Bingham CM; Higgins G; Coleman R; Van Der Weyden MB
Lancet; 1998 Aug; 352(9126):441-5. PubMed ID: 9708752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Roberts JC; Fletcher RH; Fletcher SW
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):119-21. PubMed ID: 8015120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language.
Nylenna M; Riis P; Karlsson Y
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):149-51. PubMed ID: 8015129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A core-item reviewer evaluation (CoRE) system for manuscript peer review.
Onitilo AA; Engel JM; Salzman-Scott SA; Stankowski RV; Doi SA
Account Res; 2014; 21(2):109-21. PubMed ID: 24228975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Tips for manuscript reviewers.
Davidhizar R; Bechtel GA
Nurse Author Ed; 2003; 13(3):1-4. PubMed ID: 12841086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.
Kurihara Y; Colletti PM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Sep; 201(3):468-70. PubMed ID: 23971437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
