SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Dissemination of Medical Information: A Journal's Role
6 references·0 citing·19 second hop
Dissemination of Medical Information: A Journal's Role (1993)Dissemination of Medical Information: A J…Journals in Bits and Bytes (1992)Journals in Bits and BytesThe Ingelfinger Rule Revisited (1991)The Ingelfinger Rule RevisitedOn Authorship and Acknowledgments (1991)On Authorship and Acknowledgm…The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial (1990)The effects of blinding on th…The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review (1990)The Effects of Blinding on th…How Good is Peer Review? (1989)How Good is Peer Review?Lessons from the Darsee Affair (1983)A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (1992)An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1993)Impact factors of forensic science and toxicology journals: what do the numbers really mean? (2003)Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Prevention of Depressive Symptoms in University Students: a Meta-analytic Review (2019)Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (1991)Authorship: “Law” and Order (1999)How Many Neurosurgeons Does It Take to Write a Research Article? Authorship Proliferation in Neurosurgical Research (2000)Authorship in a small medical journal: A study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors (2004)Policies, practices, and attitudes of north american medical journal editors (1995)The Internet and theJournal (1995)Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg? (2001)The end of scientific journals? (1992)Assessing “Best Evidence”: Issues in Grading the Quality of Studies for Systematic Reviews (1999)Research methods: Managing primary study quality in meta‐analyses (2003)We Have to Break Up (2009)The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation (1991)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? (1998)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1990The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review261 cited
  • 1990The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial216 cited
  • 1991The Ingelfinger Rule Revisited120 cited
  • 1991On Authorship and Acknowledgments99 cited
  • 1989How Good is Peer Review?59 cited
  • 1992Journals in Bits and Bytes21 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work