Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 27

1.

A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science.

Almquist M, von Allmen RS, Carradice D, Oosterling SJ, McFarlane K, Wijnhoven B.

PLoS One. 2017 Jun 29;12(6):e0179031. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179031. eCollection 2017.

2.

Reply to "On the Impact Factor and the ASM Editorial Policy".

Fang FC, Casadevall A.

Infect Immun. 2017 Jan 26;85(2). pii: e00989-16. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00989-16. Print 2017 Feb. No abstract available.

PMID:
28126951
3.

Editorial: CORR ® Will Change to Double-blind Peer Review-What Took Us So Long to Get There?

Leopold SS.

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Feb;475(2):297-299. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-5198-0. Epub 2016 Dec 8. No abstract available. Erratum in: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Mar;475(3):926.

PMID:
27933443
4.

Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness (CERTAIN): evolution of a content management system for point-of-care clinical decision support.

Barwise A, Garcia-Arguello L, Dong Y, Hulyalkar M, Vukoja M, Schultz MJ, Adhikari NK, Bonneton B, Kilickaya O, Kashyap R, Gajic O, Schmickl CN.

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Oct 3;16(1):127.

5.

Peer review and the publication process.

Ali PA, Watson R.

Nurs Open. 2016 Mar 16;3(4):193-202. eCollection 2016 Oct. Review.

6.

Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I.

BMC Med. 2016 Jun 10;14(1):85. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5. Review.

7.

Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort study.

van Lent M, IntHout J, Out HJ.

BMJ Open. 2015 Sep 30;5(9):e007961. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007961. Review.

8.

Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review.

Thaler K, Kien C, Nussbaumer B, Van Noord MG, Griebler U, Klerings I, Gartlehner G; UNCOVER Project Consortium.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jul;68(7):792-802. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.008. Epub 2015 Jan 30. Review.

9.
10.

Peer Review: Publication's Gold Standard.

Mayden KD.

J Adv Pract Oncol. 2012 Mar;3(2):117-22. Review. No abstract available.

11.

Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects.

McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Mar;67(3):267-77. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015. Epub 2013 Nov 22. Review.

12.

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, Hébert PC, Palepu A.

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

13.

Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities.

Ho RC, Mak KK, Tao R, Lu Y, Day JR, Pan F.

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Jun 7;13:74. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-74. Review.

14.

Standards in the face of uncertainty--peer review is flawed and under-researched, but the best we have.

Mertens S, Baethge C.

Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012 Dec;109(51-52):900-2. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2012.0900. Epub 2012 Dec 24. No abstract available.

15.

Publishing your work in a journal: understanding the peer review process.

Voight ML, Hoogenboom BJ.

Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Oct;7(5):452-60.

16.

Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social web.

Yarkoni T.

Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Oct 1;6:72. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00072. eCollection 2012.

17.
18.

Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial.

Cobo E, Selva-O'Callagham A, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Dominguez R, Vilardell M.

PLoS One. 2007 Mar 28;2(3):e332.

19.

Evidence based publishing.

Tite L, Schroter S.

BMJ. 2006 Aug 19;333(7564):366. No abstract available.

20.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.

Smith R.

J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr;99(4):178-82. Review. No abstract available.

Supplemental Content

Support Center