Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 93

1.

#BlueJC: BJOG and Katherine Twining Network collaborate to facilitate post-publication peer review and enhance research literacy via a Twitter journal club.

Leung EY, Tirlapur SA, Siassakos D, Khan KS.

BJOG. 2013 May;120(6):657-60. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12197. No abstract available.

2.
3.
4.

Social media, medicine and the modern journal club.

Topf JM, Hiremath S.

Int Rev Psychiatry. 2015 Apr;27(2):147-54. doi: 10.3109/09540261.2014.998991.

PMID:
25906989
5.

Social media, evidence-based tweeting, and JCEHP.

Djuricich AM.

J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2014 Fall;34(4):202-4. doi: 10.1002/chp.21250.

PMID:
25530289
6.

Blogs and Twitter in medical publications: too unreliable to quote, or a change waiting to happen?

Chatterjee P, Biswas T.

S Afr Med J. 2011 Sep 27;101(10):712, 714.

PMID:
22272866
7.

Journal Club via social media: authors take note of the impact of #BlueJC.

Leung E, Siassakos D, Khan KS.

BJOG. 2015 Jul;122(8):1042-4. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13440. No abstract available.

8.

[Peer review is not based on evidence, but on tradition and good intentions].

Vinther S, Rosenberg J.

Ugeskr Laeger. 2013 Jan 7;175(1-2):45-8. Review. Danish.

PMID:
23305640
9.

Peer-reviewed publications in the era of social media--JHM 2.0.

Greysen SR, Arora VM, Auerbach AD.

J Hosp Med. 2014 Apr;9(4):269-70. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2175. Epub 2014 Feb 26. No abstract available.

10.

Impact: Pack a punch.

Dance A.

Nature. 2013 Oct 17;502(7471):397-8. No abstract available.

PMID:
24137828
11.

Reviewer development: new initiatives.

Berquist TH.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Jan;204(1):1-2. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.14024. No abstract available.

PMID:
25539228
12.

The long journey to publication: some thoughts on the journal review process.

Thomas SP.

Issues Ment Health Nurs. 1998 Sep-Oct;19(5):415-8. No abstract available.

PMID:
9782859
13.

The impact of electronic publication and the E-journal on quality and the peer review process.

Lee ST.

Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1997 Jul;26(4):393. No abstract available.

PMID:
9395796
14.

Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study.

Couzin-Frankel J.

Science. 2013 Sep 20;341(6152):1331. doi: 10.1126/science.341.6152.1331. No abstract available.

PMID:
24052283
15.

Scientific advances: Fallacy of perfection harms peer review.

Zimring JC, Spitalnik SL.

Nature. 2016 Sep 1;537(7618):34. doi: 10.1038/537034a. No abstract available.

PMID:
27582209
16.

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
17.

Introducing prospective manuscript review to address publication bias.

Mell LK, Zietman AL.

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Nov 15;90(4):729-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.07.052. Epub 2014 Oct 18. No abstract available.

PMID:
25585776
18.

Twitter-Augmented Journal Club: Educational Engagement and Experience So Far.

Udani AD, Moyse D, Peery CA, Taekman JM.

A A Case Rep. 2016 Apr 15;6(8):253-6. doi: 10.1213/XAA.0000000000000255.

PMID:
26579611
19.

Quality evaluation needs some better quality tools.

Döring TF.

Nature. 2007 Feb 15;445(7129):709. No abstract available.

PMID:
17301769
20.

International Urology Journal Club via Twitter: 12-month experience.

Thangasamy IA, Leveridge M, Davies BJ, Finelli A, Stork B, Woo HH.

Eur Urol. 2014 Jul;66(1):112-7. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.034. Epub 2014 Feb 7.

PMID:
24548686

Supplemental Content

Support Center