441 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9676665)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.
Callaham ML; Tercier J
PLoS Med; 2007 Jan; 4(1):e40. PubMed ID: 17411314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.
van Rooyen S; Delamothe T; Evans SJ
BMJ; 2010 Nov; 341():c5729. PubMed ID: 21081600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.
Evans AT; McNutt RA; Fletcher SW; Fletcher RH
J Gen Intern Med; 1993 Aug; 8(8):422-8. PubMed ID: 8410407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Author perception of peer review.
Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR
Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices in Peer-reviewed Biomedical Journals.
Cooper RJ; Gupta M; Wilkes MS; Hoffman JR
J Gen Intern Med; 2006 Dec; 21(12):1248-52. PubMed ID: 17105524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
McNutt RA; Evans AT; Fletcher RH; Fletcher SW
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1371-6. PubMed ID: 2304216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.
Chauvin A; Ravaud P; Baron G; Barnes C; Boutron I
BMC Med; 2015 Jul; 13():158. PubMed ID: 26141137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
