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 *

1017 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9676664)

  • 1. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
    Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
    Kravitz RL; Franks P; Feldman MD; Gerrity M; Byrne C; Tierney WM
    PLoS One; 2010 Apr; 5(4):e10072. PubMed ID: 20386704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance.
    Callaham ML; Wears RL; Waeckerle JF
    Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Sep; 32(3 Pt 1):318-22. PubMed ID: 9737493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
    Black N; van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Smith R; Evans S
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):231-3. PubMed ID: 9676665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.
    Kliewer MA; Freed KS; DeLong DM; Pickhardt PJ; Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Jun; 184(6):1731-5. PubMed ID: 15908521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development.
    Janke KK; Bzowyckyj AS; Traynor AP
    Am J Pharm Educ; 2017 May; 81(4):73. PubMed ID: 28630514
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts.
    Hausmann L; Schweitzer B; Middleton FA; Schulz JB
    J Neurochem; 2018 Jan; ():. PubMed ID: 29377133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
    Strayhorn J; McDermott JF; Tanguay P
    Am J Psychiatry; 1993 Jun; 150(6):947-52. PubMed ID: 8494074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.
    Kurihara Y; Colletti PM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Sep; 201(3):468-70. PubMed ID: 23971437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. "It is becoming increasingly difficult to find reviewers"-myths and facts about peer review.
    Zupanc GKH
    J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol; 2024 Jan; 210(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 37318565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Quality of manuscript evaluation in Gaceta Sanitaria].
    García AM; Plasència A; Fernández E
    Gac Sanit; 2002; 16(3):244-9. PubMed ID: 12057181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
    Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
    Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [What do reviewers look for in 'original articles' submitted for publication in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde?].
    Tjon MJ; Sang F; Overbeke AJ; Lockefeer JH
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1996 Nov; 140(47):2349-52. PubMed ID: 8984399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.
    Glonti K; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
    BMJ Open; 2019 Nov; 9(11):e033421. PubMed ID: 31767597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 51.