Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 132

1.

Reviewing for clinical orthopaedics and related research.

Brand RA.

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Sep;470(9):2622-5. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2447-8. Review.

2.

Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer.

Clark RK.

Br Dent J. 2012 Aug;213(4):153-4. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.721.

PMID:
22918342
3.

Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance?

Weiner BK, Weiner JP, Smith HE.

Spine J. 2010 Mar;10(3):209-11. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.12.003.

PMID:
20207330
4.

Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers.

Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR.

Ann Behav Med. 2011 Aug;42(1):1-13. doi: 10.1007/s12160-011-9269-x.

PMID:
21505912
5.

The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.

Vintzileos AM, Ananth CV, Odibo AO, Chauhan SP, Smulian JC, Oyelese Y.

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec;211(6):703.e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.053. Epub 2014 Jun 28.

PMID:
24983685
6.

Upgrading our instructions for authors.

Schriger DL, Wears RL, Cooper RJ, Callaham ML.

Ann Emerg Med. 2003 Apr;41(4):565-7. Review. No abstract available.

PMID:
12658258
7.

How to avoid the reviewer's axe: one editor's view.

Senturia SD.

IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2004 Jan;51(1):127-30.

PMID:
14995024
8.

Meaningful peer review is integral to quality science and should provide benefits to the authors and reviewers alike.

Carrell DT, Rajpert-De Meyts E.

Andrology. 2013 Jul;1(4):531-2. doi: 10.1111/j.2047-2927.2013.00105.x. No abstract available.

9.

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 8;5(4):e10072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072.

10.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol).

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

Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 17;2:41. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-41.

11.

Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.

Schriger DL, Kadera SP, von Elm E.

Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Mar;67(3):401-406.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.003. Epub 2015 Oct 27.

PMID:
26518378
12.

A systematic guide for peer reviewers for a medical journal.

Garfield JM, Kaye AD, Kolinsky DC, Urman RD.

J Med Pract Manage. 2015 Mar-Apr;30(6 Spec No):13-7.

PMID:
26062311
13.

Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.

Henly SJ, Dougherty MC.

Nurs Outlook. 2009 Jan-Feb;57(1):18-26. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2008.05.006.

PMID:
19150263
14.

Authorship policy of the Journal of Korean Medical Science.

Hong ST.

J Korean Med Sci. 2010 May;25(5):657. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2010.25.5.657. Epub 2010 Apr 21. No abstract available.

15.

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.

16.

Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives.

Bunner C, Larson EL.

Am J Infect Control. 2012 Oct;40(8):701-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.05.012.

PMID:
23021414
17.

Scientific and statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research: Comparison of completeness, quality, and usefulness.

Henly SJ, Bennett JA, Dougherty MC.

Nurs Outlook. 2010 Jul-Aug;58(4):188-99. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2010.04.004. Erratum in: Nurs Outlook. 2010 Sep-Oct;58(5):225.

PMID:
20637932
18.

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. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2008.151886. Epub 2009 Feb 11.

PMID:
19211602
19.

[Advice for authors. Four principal reasons for manuscript rejection].

Clarke SP.

Perspect Infirm. 2006 Jan-Feb;3(3):35-9. French. No abstract available.

PMID:
16480058
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

Supplemental Content

Support Center