194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8015119)
21. How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions.
Sweitzer BJ; Cullen DJ
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):152-3. PubMed ID: 8015130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Quality science and quality assurance: observations of an environmental scientist.
Hughes TJ
Qual Assur; 1999; 7(4):225-35. PubMed ID: 11191123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde.
Pierie JP; Walvoort HC; Overbeke AJ
Lancet; 1996 Nov; 348(9040):1480-3. PubMed ID: 8942777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; Provenzale JM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Dec; 183(6):1545-50. PubMed ID: 15547189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The effect of dedicated methodology and statistical review on published manuscript quality.
Schriger DL; Cooper RJ; Wears RL; Waeckerle JF
Ann Emerg Med; 2002 Sep; 40(3):334-7. PubMed ID: 12192360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance?
Weiner BK; Weiner JP; Smith HE
Spine J; 2010 Mar; 10(3):209-11. PubMed ID: 20207330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
McNutt RA; Evans AT; Fletcher RH; Fletcher SW
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1371-6. PubMed ID: 2304216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers.
Navalta JW; Lyons TS
Adv Physiol Educ; 2010 Dec; 34(4):170-3. PubMed ID: 21098383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.
Kliewer MA; Freed KS; DeLong DM; Pickhardt PJ; Provenzale JM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Jun; 184(6):1731-5. PubMed ID: 15908521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?
Gilbert JR; Williams ES; Lundberg GD
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):139-42. PubMed ID: 8015126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Assessment of variables that influence agreement between reviewers for Foot & Ankle International.
Kwon JY; Gonzalez T; Miller C; Cook SP; Briceno J; Velasco BT; Thordarson D
Foot Ankle Surg; 2020 Jul; 26(5):573-579. PubMed ID: 31416682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey.
Tite L; Schroter S
J Epidemiol Community Health; 2007 Jan; 61(1):9-12. PubMed ID: 17183008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.
Evans AT; McNutt RA; Fletcher SW; Fletcher RH
J Gen Intern Med; 1993 Aug; 8(8):422-8. PubMed ID: 8410407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Metrics for Original Research Articles in the AJR: From First Submission to Final Publication.
Rosenkrantz AB; Harisinghani M
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Jun; 204(6):1152-6. PubMed ID: 26001223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Evaluating the surgery literature: can standardizing peer-review today predict manuscript impact tomorrow?
Sosa JA; Mehta P; Thomas DC; Berland G; Gross C; McNamara RL; Rosenthal R; Udelsman R; Bravata DM; Roman SA
Ann Surg; 2009 Jul; 250(1):152-8. PubMed ID: 19561471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
