292 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9676666)
21. Impact of blinded versus unblinded abstract review on scientific program content.
Smith J; Nixon R; Bueschen AJ; Venable DD; Henry HH
J Urol; 2002 Nov; 168(5):2123-5. PubMed ID: 12394728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators.
Cho MK; Justice AC; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Waeckerle JF; Callaham ML; Rennie D
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):243-5. PubMed ID: 9676669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.
Jagsi R; Bennett KE; Griffith KA; DeCastro R; Grace C; Holliday E; Zietman AL
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Aug; 89(5):940-946. PubMed ID: 25035195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial.
Cobo E; Selva-O'Callagham A; Ribera JM; Cardellach F; Dominguez R; Vilardell M
PLoS One; 2007 Mar; 2(3):e332. PubMed ID: 17389922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. 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]
29. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.
Schroter S; Black N; Evans S; Carpenter J; Godlee F; Smith R
BMJ; 2004 Mar; 328(7441):673. PubMed ID: 14996698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Designs of trials assessing interventions to improve the peer review process: a vignette-based survey.
Heim A; Ravaud P; Baron G; Boutron I
BMC Med; 2018 Oct; 16(1):191. PubMed ID: 30318018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process.
Vercellini P; Buggio L; Viganò P; Somigliana E
Eur J Intern Med; 2016 Jun; 31():15-9. PubMed ID: 27129625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts.
Garfunkel JM; Lawson EE; Hamrick HJ; Ulshen MH
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1376-8. PubMed ID: 2304217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Peer review to ensure quality in forensic mental health publication.
Felthous AR; Wettstein RM
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2014; 42(3):305-14. PubMed ID: 25187283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Double- vs single-blind peer review effect on acceptance rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Ucci MA; D'Antonio F; Berghella V
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2022 Jul; 4(4):100645. PubMed ID: 35430413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Perceived value of providing peer reviewers with abstracts and preprints of related published and unpublished papers.
Hatch CL; Goodman SN
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):273-4. PubMed ID: 9676679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial.
Houry D; Green S; Callaham M
BMC Med Educ; 2012 Aug; 12():83. PubMed ID: 22928960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions: prospective audit of economic submissions to BMJ and The Lancet.
Jefferson T; Smith R; Yee Y; Drummond M; Pratt M; Gale R
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):275-7. PubMed ID: 9676680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial.
Walsh E; Rooney M; Appleby L; Wilkinson G
Br J Psychiatry; 2000 Jan; 176():47-51. PubMed ID: 10789326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer.
Faggion CM
Br Dent J; 2016 Feb; 220(4):167-8. PubMed ID: 26917302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
