Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 149

1.

Training of peer reviewers: validation of a 5-point rating scale.

Callaham M.

PLoS Med. 2007 Apr;4(4):e166. No abstract available.

2.

Peer evaluations can be problematic.

Cates ME, Monk-Tutor MR.

Am J Pharm Educ. 2010 Feb 10;74(1):16. No abstract available.

3.

A different method of teaching peer review systems.

Lightfoot JT.

Am J Physiol. 1998 Jun;274(6 Pt 2):S57-61.

4.

Reviewing scientific manuscripts: how much statistical knowledge should a reviewer really know?

Morton JP.

Adv Physiol Educ. 2009 Mar;33(1):7-9. doi: 10.1152/advan.90207.2008. Review.

5.
6.

Twelve tips for peer observation of teaching.

Siddiqui ZS, Jonas-Dwyer D, Carr SE.

Med Teach. 2007 May;29(4):297-300. Review.

PMID:
17786740
7.

Developing a peer assessment of lecturing instrument: lessons learned.

Newman LR, Lown BA, Jones RN, Johansson A, Schwartzstein RM.

Acad Med. 2009 Aug;84(8):1104-10. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ad18f9.

PMID:
19638781
8.

Proposing a manuscript peer-review checklist.

Duchesne S, Jannin P.

Neuroimage. 2008 Feb 15;39(4):1783-7. Epub 2007 Oct 13.

9.

A peer review review.

Wencel S.

Wis Med J. 1989 Sep;88(9):27-32, 35.

PMID:
2588651
10.

Funding should recognize the value of peer review.

Dominiczak MH.

Nature. 2003 Jan 9;421(6919):111. No abstract available.

PMID:
12520276
11.

Is peer review in crisis?

Mulligan A.

Oral Oncol. 2005 Feb;41(2):135-41. No abstract available.

PMID:
15695114
12.

Evaluating teaching strategies: a blended perspective.

Polifroni EC.

J Nurs Educ. 2008 Mar;47(3):95-7. No abstract available.

PMID:
18380261
13.

Peer review to select academic job applicants.

Fernández-Juricic E, Alonso WJ, Schuck-Paim C.

Nature. 2002 Nov 7;420(6911):16. No abstract available.

PMID:
12422184
14.

The qualitative portfolio at The Gerontologist: strong and getting stronger.

Schoenberg NE, Miller EA, Pruchno R.

Gerontologist. 2011 Jun;51(3):281-4. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnr032. No abstract available.

PMID:
21576704
15.

A teaching design: standards of practice as a basis for peer review.

Martin EJ, Finneran MR.

Perspect Psychiatr Care. 1980 Nov-Dec;18(6):242-8. No abstract available.

PMID:
6907840
16.

Conference addresses potential flaws in peer review process.

Baltic S.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001 Nov 21;93(22):1679-80. No abstract available.

PMID:
11717323
17.

The Science hoax: poor journalology reflects poor training in peer review.

Kumar R.

BMJ. 2013 Dec 13;347:f7465. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f7465. No abstract available.

PMID:
24336454
18.

The ups and downs of peer review.

Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, Mans R, Mayhew D, McGowan S, Polter A, Qadri Y, Sarfare S, Schultz K, Splittgerber R, Stephenson J, Tower C, Walton RG, Zotov A.

Adv Physiol Educ. 2007 Jun;31(2):145-52.

19.

How does peer review work?

Aaron L.

Radiol Technol. 2008 Jul-Aug;79(6):553-4. No abstract available.

PMID:
18650531
20.

Effective peer review.

Ackerman N.

Nurs Manage. 1991 Aug;22(8):48A, 48D. No abstract available.

PMID:
1870797

Supplemental Content

Support Center