261 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8015129)
1. 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]
2. How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication.
Williams HC
J Am Acad Dermatol; 2004 Jul; 51(1):79-83. PubMed ID: 15243528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The Referee as an Educator: Assessment of the Quality of Referee-Players Interactions in Competitive Youth Handball.
Płoszaj K; Firek W; Czechowski M
Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2020 Jun; 17(11):. PubMed ID: 32512779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Identifying manuscript reviewers: randomized comparison of asking first or just sending.
Pitkin RM; Burmeister LF
JAMA; 2002 Jun; 287(21):2795-6. PubMed ID: 12038915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Country development and manuscript selection bias: a review of published studies.
Yousefi-Nooraie R; Shakiba B; Mortaz-Hejri S
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2006 Aug; 6():37. PubMed ID: 16879753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
Earnshaw JJ; Farndon JR; Guillou PJ; Johnson CD; Murie JA; Murray GD
Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2000 Apr; 82(4 Suppl):133-5. PubMed ID: 10889776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Referee bias contributes to home advantage in English Premiership football.
Boyko RH; Boyko AR; Boyko MG
J Sports Sci; 2007 Sep; 25(11):1185-94. PubMed ID: 17654230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [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]
9. Ophthalmology and vision science research. Part 4: avoiding rejection--structuring a research paper from introduction to references.
Gilhotra AK; McGhee CN
J Cataract Refract Surg; 2006 Jan; 32(1):151-7. PubMed ID: 16516795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Inconsistency of decision-making, the Achilles heel of referees.
Nevill AM; Hemingway A; Greaves R; Dallaway A; Devonport TJ
J Sports Sci; 2017 Nov; 35(22):2257-2261. PubMed ID: 27938246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Peer review at the Health Information and Libraries Journal.
Grant MJ
Health Info Libr J; 2014 Dec; 31(4):251-3. PubMed ID: 25443027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.
Vintzileos AM; Ananth CV; Odibo AO; Chauhan SP; Smulian JC; Oyelese Y
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):703.e1-5. PubMed ID: 24983685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Assessment of Referees in Terms of Building a Positive Climate and Responsiveness to the Health, Emotional, and Social Needs of Rugby Players in Competitive Children Sport.
Płoszaj K; Firek W; Ciszewska-Hołda P
Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 Sep; 18(19):. PubMed ID: 34639386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Funding Medical Research Projects: Taking into Account Referees' Severity and Consistency through Many-Faceted Rasch Modeling of Projects' Scores.
Tesio L; Simone A; Grzeda MT; Ponzio M; Dati G; Zaratin P; Perucca L; Battaglia MA
J Appl Meas; 2015; 16(2):129-52. PubMed ID: 26075663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The Game Between a Biased Reviewer and His Editor.
García JA; Rodriguez-Sánchez R; Fdez-Valdivia J
Sci Eng Ethics; 2019 Feb; 25(1):265-283. PubMed ID: 29079911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Variability of soccer referees' match performances.
Weston M; Drust B; Atkinson G; Gregson W
Int J Sports Med; 2011 Mar; 32(3):190-4. PubMed ID: 21165796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. What happens to medical articles submitted in Spanish that are not accepted for publication?
Matías-Guiu JA; García-Ramos R; Castellanos M; Martínez-Vila E; Matías-Guiu J
Neurologia; 2013 May; 28(4):205-11. PubMed ID: 22795919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reliability of laparoscopic skills assessment on video: 8-year results of the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system in Japan.
Matsuda T; Kanayama H; Ono Y; Kawauchi A; Mizoguchi H; Nakagawa K; Iwamura M; Shigeta M; Habuchi T; Terachi T;
J Endourol; 2014 Nov; 28(11):1374-8. PubMed ID: 24819163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
