173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8198351)
1. Does editorial peer review work?
Lock S
Ann Intern Med; 1994 Jul; 121(1):60-1. PubMed ID: 8198351
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. How does peer review work?
Aaron L
Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Peer Review of Scholarly Work.
Brandon D; McGrath JM
Adv Neonatal Care; 2018 Dec; 18(6):423-424. PubMed ID: 30499821
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Open access under scrutiny.
Samkange-Zeeb F; Zeeb H
J Radiol Prot; 2013 Dec; 33(4):885-6. PubMed ID: 24285443
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Peer review and the fate of manuscripts.
Frey JJ
Fam Med; 1985; 17(1):3. PubMed ID: 3843084
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Making the most of peer review.
Nat Neurosci; 2000 Jul; 3(7):629. PubMed ID: 10862686
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The Art of Peer Review.
Fraser D
Neonatal Netw; 2018 Jul; 37(4):195-196. PubMed ID: 30567915
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Perfecting peer review?
Nat Med; 2011 Jan; 17(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 21217648
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Biomedical Journals in India: some critical concerns.
Satyanarayana K; Sharma A
Indian J Med Res; 2010 Aug; 132():119-22. PubMed ID: 20716810
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Enhancements in peer review of manuscripts by the Journal.
Liesegang TJ
Am J Ophthalmol; 2014 Jul; 158(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 24929824
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Where is the honor in honorary authorship?
Kressel HY; Dixon AK
Radiology; 2011 May; 259(2):324-7. PubMed ID: 21386052
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The peer review process: Giving and receiving advice.
Jull G; Moore A
Musculoskelet Sci Pract; 2019 Apr; 40():v. PubMed ID: 30773425
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. [New editorial advice from the Journal of Gerontology and Geriatrics].
Diesfeldt HF
Tijdschr Gerontol Geriatr; 2006 Sep; 37(4):132-3. PubMed ID: 17025008
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Landmark, landmine, or landfill? The role of peer review in assessing manuscripts.
Balistreri WF
J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):107-8. PubMed ID: 17643754
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Peering into the review process.
Nat Struct Biol; 2000 Dec; 7(12):1075-6. PubMed ID: 11101879
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. [Scientific reports: responsibility for quality].
Balzer K
Pflege; 2013 Dec; 26(6):383-5. PubMed ID: 24297827
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Meeting our ethical obligations in medical publishing: responsibilities of editors, authors, and readers of peer-reviewed journals.
Albert DM; Liesegang TJ; Schachat AP
Arch Ophthalmol; 2005 May; 123(5):684-6. PubMed ID: 15883290
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The multiple faces of journal peer review.
Thatje S
Naturwissenschaften; 2010 Mar; 97(3):237-9. PubMed ID: 20127306
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Peer review in PLoS Medicine.
The
PLoS Med; 2007 Jan; 4(1):e58. PubMed ID: 17411325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Farther, faster, and (hopefully) better!
Link AM; LaRusso NF
Gastroenterology; 1992 Sep; 103(3):1099-101. PubMed ID: 1499911
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
