275 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9737493)
1. 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]
2. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers.
Callaham ML; Schriger DL
Ann Emerg Med; 2002 Sep; 40(3):323-8. PubMed ID: 12192358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials.
Callaham ML; Knopp RK; Gallagher EJ
JAMA; 2002 Jun; 287(21):2781-3. PubMed ID: 12038910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
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. 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]
9. 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]
10. [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]
11. 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]
12. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.
Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Berlin JA; Callaham ML
Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Sep; 32(3 Pt 1):310-7. PubMed ID: 9737492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. What Does It Take to Change an Editor's Mind? Identifying Minimally Important Difference Thresholds for Peer Reviewer Rating Scores of Scientific Articles.
Callaham M; John LK
Ann Emerg Med; 2018 Sep; 72(3):314-318.e2. PubMed ID: 29310871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
Frank E
Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers.
Lovejoy TI; Revenson TA; France CR
Ann Behav Med; 2011 Aug; 42(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 21505912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review.
Van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
J Gen Intern Med; 1999 Oct; 14(10):622-4. PubMed ID: 10571708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Peering Into Peer Review:
Provenzale JM; Buch K; Filippi CG; Gaskill-Shipley M; Hacein-Bey L; Soares BP
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Jan; 214(1):45-49. PubMed ID: 31670589
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.
Parikh LI; Benner RS; Riggs TW; Hazen N; Chescheir NC
Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Feb; 129(2):243-248. PubMed ID: 28079780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
