Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 15

Related Articles by Review for PubMed (Select 16418467)

1.
2.

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals.

Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Weeks L, Peters J, Kober T, Dias S, Schulz KF, Plint AC, Moher D.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11:MR000030. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000030.pub2. Review.

PMID:
23152285
3.
4.

Systematic reviewers commonly contact study authors but do so with limited rigor.

Mullan RJ, Flynn DN, Carlberg B, Tleyjeh IM, Kamath CC, LaBella ML, Erwin PJ, Guyatt GH, Montori VM.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Feb;62(2):138-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.002. Epub 2008 Nov 14. Review.

PMID:
19013767
5.

Peer review of the biomedical literature.

Olson CM.

Am J Emerg Med. 1990 Jul;8(4):356-8. Review.

PMID:
2194471
6.

Problems faced by editors of peer reviewed medical journals.

Jawaid SA.

Saudi Med J. 2004 Jan;25(1 Suppl):S21-5. Review.

PMID:
14968187
7.

Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines.

Claxton LD.

Mutat Res. 2005 Jan;589(1):31-45. Review.

PMID:
15652225
8.

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.

Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000016. Review.

9.

Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals: a systematic review.

Wager E, Middleton P.

JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2821-4. Review.

PMID:
12038923
10.

Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review.

Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F.

JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2784-6. Review.

PMID:
12038911
11.

A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology.

Galipeau J, Moher D, Campbell C, Hendry P, Cameron DW, Palepu A, H├ębert PC.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Mar;68(3):257-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.024. Epub 2014 Nov 7. Review.

12.

Reviewers, authors, and editors: balance of power.

Bressler NM.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1999 Apr;117(4):524-6. Review. No abstract available.

PMID:
10206584
13.

An editor's considerations in publishing industry-sponsored studies.

Droller MJ.

Urol Oncol. 2015 Mar;33(3):149-54. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.11.023. Epub 2015 Jan 7. Review.

PMID:
25575712
14.

Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.

Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD.

J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Apr;30(4):360-4. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360. Epub 2015 Mar 19. Review.

15.

Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.

Walker R, Rocha da Silva P.

Front Neurosci. 2015 May 27;9:169. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00169. eCollection 2015. Review.

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk