275 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9737493)
21. 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]
22. Guide for peer reviewers of scientific articles in the Croatian Medical Journal.
Marusić M; Sambunjak D; Marusić A
Croat Med J; 2005 Apr; 46(2):326-32. PubMed ID: 15849858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. 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]
25. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
Das Sinha S; Sahni P; Nundy S
Natl Med J India; 1999; 12(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 10613000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Innovation, journal reviewers, and journal editors the game is worth the candle.
Popp RL
J Am Coll Cardiol; 2005 Oct; 46(7):1360-1. PubMed ID: 16198856
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. How to avoid the reviewer's axe: one editor's view.
Senturia SD
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2004 Jan; 51(1):127-30. PubMed ID: 14995024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Characteristics of peer reviewed clinical medicine journals.
Eldredge J
Med Ref Serv Q; 1999; 18(2):13-26. PubMed ID: 10557841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.
Galipeau J; Barbour V; Baskin P; Bell-Syer S; Cobey K; Cumpston M; Deeks J; Garner P; MacLehose H; Shamseer L; Straus S; Tugwell P; Wager E; Winker M; Moher D
BMC Med; 2016 Feb; 14():16. PubMed ID: 26837937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
Kearney MH; Freda MC
Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation.
Wagner AK; Boninger ML; Levy C; Chan L; Gater D; Kirby RL
Am J Phys Med Rehabil; 2003 Oct; 82(10):790-802. PubMed ID: 14508411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. 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]
36. Publish or perish: easier said than done.
Tintinalli J
Emerg Med (Fremantle); 2001 Dec; 13(4):407-8. PubMed ID: 11903424
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.
Chung KC; Shauver MJ; Malay S; Zhong L; Weinstein A; Rohrich RJ
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2015 Dec; 136(6):1369-1377. PubMed ID: 26273735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study.
Bingham CM; Higgins G; Coleman R; Van Der Weyden MB
Lancet; 1998 Aug; 352(9126):441-5. PubMed ID: 9708752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Communities of Practice in Peer Review: Outlining a Group Review Process.
Nagler A; Ovitsh R; Dumenco L; Whicker S; Engle DL; Goodell K
Acad Med; 2019 Oct; 94(10):1437-1442. PubMed ID: 31135399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review.
Herron DM
Surg Endosc; 2012 Aug; 26(8):2275-80. PubMed ID: 22350231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
