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.
308 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9362150)
1. "Outing" peer review: medical editors scrutinize the value of secrecy. Vanchieri C J Natl Cancer Inst; 1997 Nov; 89(21):1568-9. PubMed ID: 9362150 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Thoughts of a manuscript reviewer. Bluestone N Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc; 1996; 59(3):14-8. PubMed ID: 9074317 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Peer review in scientific journals--what good is it? Relman AS West J Med; 1990 Nov; 153(5):520-2. PubMed ID: 2260288 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Scientific publishing. Peer review and quality: a dubious connection? Enserink M Science; 2001 Sep; 293(5538):2187-8. PubMed ID: 11567115 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Industry money skews drug overviews. Giles J Nature; 2005 Sep; 437(7058):458-9. PubMed ID: 16177748 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. [From the Cochrane Library: the use of peer review is still under discussion]. Stijntjes F; Veeken H Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2008 Apr; 152(16):934-7. PubMed ID: 18561790 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Pre-peer review, peer review, and post-peer review: three areas with potential for improvement. Stang A; Poole C; Schmidt-Pokrzywniak A J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Apr; 61(4):309-10. PubMed ID: 18313552 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Regional associations of medical journal editors: moving from rhetoric to reality. Habibzadeh F Bull World Health Organ; 2005 Jun; 83(6):404. PubMed ID: 15976887 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluating the surgery literature: can standardizing peer-review today predict manuscript impact tomorrow? Sosa JA; Mehta P; Thomas DC; Berland G; Gross C; McNamara RL; Rosenthal R; Udelsman R; Bravata DM; Roman SA Ann Surg; 2009 Jul; 250(1):152-8. PubMed ID: 19561471 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process. Kearney MH; Freda MC Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. How does peer review work? Aaron L Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Revealing the faults in medical journals. Liesegang TJ Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz); 2009; 57(2):75-83. PubMed ID: 19333735 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Editors' review of 2006 and the BJCP prize. Aronson JK; Lennard MS; Ritter JM; Begg EJ; Lewis LD; Schachter M Br J Clin Pharmacol; 2007 Jan; 63(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 17229039 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Biomedical peer review. Downer MC Community Dent Health; 1997 Dec; 14(4):207-8. PubMed ID: 9458576 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Peer review and the rewards of open access. Newmark P Nature; 2003 Apr; 422(6933):661. PubMed ID: 12700733 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. [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]
20. Funding should recognize the value of peer review. Dominiczak MH Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6919):111. PubMed ID: 12520276 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]