Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 185

1.

Peering into peer-review.

Helton ML, Balistreri WF.

J Pediatr. 2011 Jul;159(1):150-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.02.012. Epub 2011 Mar 22. No abstract available.

PMID:
21429510
2.

Peering into review.

[No authors listed]

Nat Med. 2010 Mar;16(3):239. doi: 10.1038/nm0310-239. No abstract available.

PMID:
20208482
3.

On editorial practice and peer review.

Shahar E.

J Eval Clin Pract. 2007 Aug;13(4):699-701. No abstract available.

PMID:
17683318
4.

Open peer review: a route to democracy.

Pharaon S.

J R Soc Med. 2007 Jan;100(1):9. No abstract available.

5.

In praise of peer reviewers and the peer review process.

Peternelj-Taylor C.

J Forensic Nurs. 2010 Winter;6(4):159-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-3938.2010.01087.x. No abstract available.

PMID:
21114756
6.

Peer review and the nursing literature.

Dougherty MC.

Nurs Res. 2009 Mar-Apr;58(2):73. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e31819f1589. No abstract available.

PMID:
19289927
7.

Developing new peer reviewers: tips for editors.

Ohler L.

Nurse Author Ed. 2005 Fall;15(4):7-9. No abstract available.

PMID:
16350891
8.

EIC editorial-27:4.

Chapple C.

Neurourol Urodyn. 2008;27(4):263. doi: 10.1002/nau.20595. No abstract available.

PMID:
18404620
9.

Editorial policy: industry funding and editorial independence.

MacDonald N, Downie J.

CMAJ. 2006 Jun 20;174(13):1817, 1819. English, French. No abstract available.

10.

Your role and responsibilities in the manuscript peer review process.

Brazeau GA, Dipiro JT, Fincham JE, Boucher BA, Tracy TS.

Am J Pharm Educ. 2008 Jun 15;72(3):69. No abstract available.

11.

Double-blind peer review: a crucial process.

Lima AF.

J Adhes Dent. 2010 Dec;12(6):423. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a20088. No abstract available.

PMID:
21246062
12.

Translation of the scientific method... Peer review.

Scarfe WC.

Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010 Apr;109(4):485-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.02.001. Epub 2010 Feb 21. No abstract available.

PMID:
20176497
13.

[Tidsskriftet, peer review and medical publishing].

Bjørheim J, Frich JC, Gjersvik P, Jacobsen G, Swensen E.

Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2006 Jan 5;126(1):20-3. Norwegian.

14.

Peer review and professionalism at the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Emanuel LL, Greenland P.

Arch Intern Med. 2005 Dec 12-26;165(22):2559-60. No abstract available.

PMID:
16344408
15.

Change to Open Peer Commentary format.

Perlovsky L, Duermeijer C.

Phys Life Rev. 2010 Mar;7(1):1. doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2009.12.002. Epub 2009 Dec 28. No abstract available.

PMID:
20374915
16.

[It smells! 2].

Engberg M, Christensen B, Karlsmose B, Lauritzen T, Lous J.

Ugeskr Laeger. 2003 Mar 10;165(11):1148-9. Danish. No abstract available.

PMID:
12677997
17.

Naïve views of peer-review and what do they tell us.

Marques JF.

Cortex. 2002 Jun;38(3):417-8. No abstract available.

PMID:
12146671
18.

[The editorial process].

Rosenberg J.

Ugeskr Laeger. 2008 Nov 24;170(48):3933. Danish. No abstract available.

PMID:
19087728
19.

Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry editorial policies and ethical guidelines.

Roth KA.

J Histochem Cytochem. 2006 Feb;54(2):129-30. No abstract available.

PMID:
16418501
20.

Format, style, and precision.

Froman RD.

Res Nurs Health. 2011 Feb;34(1):1-3. doi: 10.1002/nur.20414. Epub 2010 Nov 17. No abstract available.

PMID:
21243654

Supplemental Content

Support Center