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.
612 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8015126)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities. Williams WA; Garvey KL; Goodman DM; Lauderdale DS; Ross LF J Pediatr; 2018 Sep; 200():254-260.e1. PubMed ID: 30029860 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender. Wing DA; Benner RS; Petersen R; Newcomb R; Scott JR J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2010 Oct; 19(10):1919-23. PubMed ID: 20831430 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors. Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. Fisher M; Friedman SB; Strauss B JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):143-6. PubMed ID: 8015127 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
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. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition. Cejas C AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1181-1184. PubMed ID: 28350482 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Gender and Geographic Origin as Determinants of Manuscript Publication Outcomes: JBMR® Bibliometric Analysis from 2017 to 2019. Rivadeneira F; Loder RT; McGuire AC; Chitwood JR; Duffy K; Civitelli R; Kacena MA; Westendorf JJ J Bone Miner Res; 2022 Dec; 37(12):2420-2434. PubMed ID: 36063372 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. What do the JAMA editors say when they discuss manuscripts that they are considering for publication? Developing a schema for classifying the content of editorial discussion. Dickersin K; Ssemanda E; Mansell C; Rennie D BMC Med Res Methodol; 2007 Sep; 7():44. PubMed ID: 17894854 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Impact of study outcome on submission and acceptance metrics for peer reviewed medical journals: six year retrospective review of all completed GlaxoSmithKline human drug research studies. Evoniuk G; Mansi B; DeCastro B; Sykes J BMJ; 2017 Apr; 357():j1726. PubMed ID: 28432051 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Peer review in a small and a big medical journal: case study of the Croatian Medical Journal and the Lancet. Marusić A; Lukić IK; Marusić M; McNamee D; Sharp D; Horton R Croat Med J; 2002 Jun; 43(3):286-9. PubMed ID: 12035133 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics. Bornmann L; Daniel HD PLoS One; 2010 Oct; 5(10):e13345. PubMed ID: 20976226 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Author perception of peer review. Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]