Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 88

1.
2.
3.

Progress and prospects in scientific publications--a call for more transparency and less voluminous output.

Zaenker KS.

Inflamm Allergy Drug Targets. 2012 Dec;11(6):421. No abstract available.

PMID:
23256617
4.

[Charateristics of a good reviewer of medical literature and of a quality review].

Izaguirre A.

Acta Ortop Mex. 2008 Jul-Aug;22(4):213-4. Spanish. No abstract available.

5.

The tragedy of the reviewer commons.

Hochberg ME, Chase JM, Gotelli NJ, Hastings A, Naeem S.

Ecol Lett. 2009 Jan;12(1):2-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01276.x. No abstract available.

PMID:
19087107
6.

What is in store for EJN?

Fritschy JM, Sarter M.

Eur J Neurosci. 2008 Sep;28(6):1047. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06469.x. No abstract available.

7.

All the lonely people: by Caveman.

[No authors listed]

J Cell Sci. 2004 Aug 1;117(Pt 17):3705-6. No abstract available.

8.

[Two years experience with the editorial. Manager successful implementation for "Der Ophthalmologe"].

Holz FG.

Ophthalmologe. 2009 Jan;106(1):5. doi: 10.1007/s00347-008-1894-9. German. No abstract available.

PMID:
19083003
9.

[Should the Ugeskrift take in secondary publications without independent peer reviews?].

Hjøllund NH.

Ugeskr Laeger. 2006 Aug 14;168(33):2687; author reply 2687. Danish. No abstract available.

PMID:
16953547
10.

Editorial for May, 2012.

Duke SO.

Pest Manag Sci. 2012 May;68(5):663. doi: 10.1002/ps.3321. No abstract available.

PMID:
22488818
11.

The editors' guide for peer review of papers submitted to Endoscopy.

Dinis-Ribeiro M, Vakil N, Ponchon T.

Endoscopy. 2013;45(1):48-50. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1326005. Epub 2012 Dec 19. No abstract available.

PMID:
23254406
12.

Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.

Kearney MH, Freda MC.

Res Nurs Health. 2005 Dec;28(6):444-52.

PMID:
16287058
13.

On the value of being a journal reviewer.

Rosenbaum P.

Dev Med Child Neurol. 2005 Mar;47(3):147. No abstract available.

PMID:
15739716
14.

[Online submission of manuscripts for "The Orthopedist."].

[No authors listed]

Orthopade. 2012 Oct;41(10):799. doi: 10.1007/s00132-012-2004-x. German. No abstract available.

PMID:
23052845
15.

Too close to call.

Curfman GD, Drazen JM.

N Engl J Med. 2001 Sep 13;345(11):832. No abstract available.

16.

Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.

Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ.

Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Jan;23(1):4-6. Epub 2007 Oct 25.

PMID:
17963996
17.

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
18.

Editorial: Peer review vs. open posting.

Starkschall G.

J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012 Sep 6;13(5):4090. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v13i5.4090. No abstract available.

PMID:
22955666
19.

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
20.

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.

Supplemental Content

Support Center