These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9872878)

  • 1. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
    van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Black N; Smith R
    BMJ; 1999 Jan; 318(7175):23-7. PubMed ID: 9872878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 5. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
    Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
    Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Effect of revealing authors' conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial.
    John LK; Loewenstein G; Marder A; Callaham ML
    BMJ; 2019 Nov; 367():l5896. PubMed ID: 31694810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
    Fisher M; Friedman SB; Strauss B
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):143-6. PubMed ID: 8015127
    [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. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument.
    Landkroon AP; Euser AM; Veeken H; Hart W; Overbeke AJ
    Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Oct; 108(4):979-85. PubMed ID: 17012462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review.
    Parmanne P; Laajava J; Järvinen N; Harju T; Marttunen M; Saloheimo P
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2023 Oct; 8(1):14. PubMed ID: 37876004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Librarians and information specialists as methodological peer-reviewers: a case-study of the International Journal of Health Governance.
    Ibragimova I; Fulbright H
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2024 Jan; 9(1):1. PubMed ID: 38238865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. On Peer Review.
    Kreiman J
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2016 Jun; 59(3):480-3. PubMed ID: 27333021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.