253 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9676669)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals.
Flanagin A; Carey LA; Fontanarosa PB; Phillips SG; Pace BP; Lundberg GD; Rennie D
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):222-4. PubMed ID: 9676661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal.
Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC
Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602
[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. Honorary authorship in radiologic research articles: assessment of frequency and associated factors.
Eisenberg RL; Ngo L; Boiselle PM; Bankier AA
Radiology; 2011 May; 259(2):479-86. PubMed ID: 21386051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014).
Filardo G; da Graca B; Sass DM; Pollock BD; Smith EB; Martinez MA
BMJ; 2016 Mar; 352():i847. PubMed ID: 26935100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Conflicting interests involved in the process of publishing in biomedical journals.
Igi R
J BUON; 2015; 20(5):1373-7. PubMed ID: 26537088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance?
Weiner BK; Weiner JP; Smith HE
Spine J; 2010 Mar; 10(3):209-11. PubMed ID: 20207330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Survey of conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of ophthalmology journals.
Anraku A; Jin YP; Trope GE; Buys YM
Ophthalmology; 2009 Jun; 116(6):1093-6. PubMed ID: 19376583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.
Godlee F; Gale CR; Martyn CN
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):237-40. PubMed ID: 9676667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial.
van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):234-7. PubMed ID: 9676666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms.
Bates T; Anić A; Marusić M; Marusić A
JAMA; 2004 Jul; 292(1):86-8. PubMed ID: 15238595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
Snell L; Spencer J
Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
