94 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9355982)
1. Medical journals turn gaze inward to examine process of peer review.
Stephenson J
JAMA; 1997 Nov; 278(17):1389-91. PubMed ID: 9355982
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation.
Wagner AK; Boninger ML; Levy C; Chan L; Gater D; Kirby RL
Am J Phys Med Rehabil; 2003 Oct; 82(10):790-802. PubMed ID: 14508411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. How to avoid the reviewer's axe: one editor's view.
Senturia SD
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2004 Jan; 51(1):127-30. PubMed ID: 14995024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. [Debate on peer review. Report from an international congress on peer review].
Grimby G
Lakartidningen; 2002 Jul; 99(30-31):3109-10. PubMed ID: 12198929
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Upon Further Review: Peer Process Vital to Publishing.
Katz A
Oncol Nurs Forum; 2016 Nov; 43(6):675-676. PubMed ID: 27768133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The garbage collectors: could a particular sector of author-pays journals become silently acknowledged collectors of scientific waste?
Moore A
Bioessays; 2009 Aug; 31(8):821. PubMed ID: 19609967
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Rebound peer review: a viable recourse for aggrieved authors?
Sen CK
Antioxid Redox Signal; 2012 Feb; 16(4):293-6. PubMed ID: 22098370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Ghostwriting in scientific anesthesia journals.
Cullen DJ
Anesthesiology; 1997 Aug; 87(2):195-6; discussion 197-200. PubMed ID: 9286879
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. On ghost authorship and reviews: the 6th International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication.
Baethge C
Dtsch Arztebl Int; 2009 Nov; 106(45):731-2. PubMed ID: 19997585
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Blinded by the light: Anonymization should be used in peer review to prevent bias, not protect referees.
Shaw DM
EMBO Rep; 2015 Aug; 16(8):894-7. PubMed ID: 26174615
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Research on peer review and biomedical publication: furthering the quest to improve the quality of reporting.
Rennie D; Flanagin A
JAMA; 2014 Mar; 311(10):1019-20. PubMed ID: 24618962
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Bad science, sloppy reporting, and retracted publications: should peer review be the scapegoat?
Thomas SP
Issues Ment Health Nurs; 2014 Jun; 35(6):411-2. PubMed ID: 24857524
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Next steps in the Schön affair.
Kennedy D
Science; 2002 Oct; 298(5593):495. PubMed ID: 12386303
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Peer review and appeal: flawed but trusted?
Pravinkumar E
Lancet; 2003 Aug; 362(9385):747. PubMed ID: 12957106
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. [The journals must honestly tell who is doing the job].
Bergström R
Lakartidningen; 2008 May 7-13; 105(19):1406-7. PubMed ID: 18574981
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Retractions' realities.
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6927):1. PubMed ID: 12621394
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. QUAD system offers fair shares to all authors.
Verhagen JV; Wallace KJ; Collins SC; Scott TR
Nature; 2003 Dec; 426(6967):602. PubMed ID: 14668833
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The do's and don't's of submitting scientific papers.
Walsh PJ; Mommsen TP; Nilsson GE
Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol; 2009 Mar; 152(3):203-4. PubMed ID: 19146976
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Predatory publishing: What editors need to know.
INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative
CANNT J; 2015; 25(1):8-10. PubMed ID: 26882636
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
