My NCBI | Sign In
RSS Settings
  • Search:

Display Settings:

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

    Results: 1 to 20 of 126

    1.

    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. Epub 2009 Feb 11.PMID: 19211602 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

    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 15;280(3):240-2. Erratum in: JAMA 1998 Sep 16;280(11):968. PMID: 9676668 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

    3.

    The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003.

    Liesegang TJ, Shaikh M, Crook JE.

    Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Apr;143(4):551-60. Epub 2007 Feb 5.PMID: 17276380 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

    4.

    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 15;280(3):243-5. Erratum in: JAMA 1998 Sep 16;280(11):968. PMID: 9676669 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

    5.

    Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.

    Kliewer MA, DeLong DM, Freed K, Jenkins CB, Paulson EK, Provenzale JM.

    AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Dec;183(6):1545-50.PMID: 15547189 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

    6.

    What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.

    Gupta P, Kaur G, Sharma B, Shah D, Choudhury P.

    Indian Pediatr. 2006 Jun;43(6):479-89. Erratum in: Indian Pediatr. 2006 Aug;43(8):749. PMID: 16820657 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

    7.

    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 18;295(3):314-7.PMID: 16418467 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

    8.

    Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

    Armstrong AW, Idriss SZ, Kimball AB, Bernhard JD.

    J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 Apr;58(4):632-5. Epub 2008 Feb 4.PMID: 18249470 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

    9.

    The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.

    Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B.

    JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):143-6. Erratum in: JAMA 1994 Oct 19;272(15):1170. PMID: 8015127 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

    10.

    Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.

    Marusić A, Mestrović T, Petrovecki M, Marusić M.

    Croat Med J. 1998 Mar;39(1):3-9.PMID: 9475799 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

    11.

    Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.

    Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL.

    JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):229-31.PMID: 9676664 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

    12.

    Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts.

    Garfunkel JM, Lawson EE, Hamrick HJ, Ulshen MH.

    JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1376-8.PMID: 2304217 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

    13.

    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.PMID: 17411314 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

    14.

    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.PMID: 15908521 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

    15.

    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 15;280(3):234-7.PMID: 9676666 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

    16.

    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 30;4:13.PMID: 16734897 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

    17.

    Does online submission of manuscripts improve efficiency?

    Govender P, Buckley O, McAuley G, O'Brien J, Torreggiani WC.

    JBR-BTR. 2008 Nov-Dec;91(6):231-4.PMID: 19202995 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

    18.

    Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals.

    Lee KP, Boyd EA, Holroyd-Leduc JM, Bacchetti P, Bero LA.

    Med J Aust. 2006 Jun 19;184(12):621-6.PMID: 16803442 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

    19.

    Who benefits from peer review? An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

    Loonen MP, Hage JJ, Kon M.

    Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005 Oct;116(5):1461-72; discussion 1473-5.PMID: 16217496 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

    20.

    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.PMID: 17643779 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

    Supplemental Content

    Filter your results:

    Find related data

    Recent activity