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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

453 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8015127)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review.
    Laband DN; Piette MJ
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):147-9. PubMed ID: 8015128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
    Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
    Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 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. Impact of blinded versus unblinded abstract review on scientific program content.
    Smith J; Nixon R; Bueschen AJ; Venable DD; Henry HH
    J Urol; 2002 Nov; 168(5):2123-5. PubMed ID: 12394728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.
    Jagsi R; Bennett KE; Griffith KA; DeCastro R; Grace C; Holliday E; Zietman AL
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Aug; 89(5):940-946. PubMed ID: 25035195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review.
    Van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
    J Gen Intern Med; 1999 Oct; 14(10):622-4. PubMed ID: 10571708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Factors influencing editors' decision on acceptance or rejection of manuscripts: the authors' perspective.
    Shakiba B; Salmasian H; Yousefi-Nooraie R; Rohanizadegan M
    Arch Iran Med; 2008 May; 11(3):257-62. PubMed ID: 18426315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.
    van Rooyen S; Delamothe T; Evans SJ
    BMJ; 2010 Nov; 341():c5729. PubMed ID: 21081600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial.
    van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):234-7. PubMed ID: 9676666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.
    Godlee F; Gale CR; Martyn CN
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):237-40. PubMed ID: 9676667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.
    Shattell MM; Chinn P; Thomas SP; Cowling WR
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2010 Mar; 42(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20487187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal.
    Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
    Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 23.