SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Proceso y actividad editorial de EMERGENCIAS
9 references·0 citing·34 second hop
Proceso y actividad editorial de EMERGENCIAS (2007)Proceso y actividad editorial de EMERGENC…Producción científica de los urgenciólogos españoles durante los últimos 30 años (1975-2004). Análisis bibliométrico descriptivo (2007)Producción científica de los …Procesos de revisión y de edición en Medicina Clínica (2005)Procesos de revisión y de edi…Revista Española de Cardiología 2004: actividad, difusión internacional e impacto científico (2004)Revista Española de Cardiolog…Lista de comprobación (checklist) abreviada para la evaluación de artículos de investigación biomédica básica (2003)Lista de comprobación (checkl…The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)The Revised CONSORT Statement…No further studies are required: Additional notes on avoiding manuscript rejection (2001)No further studies are requir…Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine (1994)Manuscript Quality before and…The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation (1990)The Philosophical Basis of Pe…Editorial Peer Review in Biomedical Publication (1990)Editorial Peer Review in Biom…[Impactolatry: diagnosis and treatment]. (1997)Algunas reflexiones y consideraciones sobre el factor de impacto (2003)Mapa bibliométrico de España 1994-2002: biomedicina y ciencias de la salud (2005)Producción científica de los urgenciólogos españoles durante los últimos 30 años (1975-2004). Análisis comparativo con la actividad de otras especialidades en España y con la de urgenciólogos de otros países (2007)La nueva imagen de EMERGENCIAS (2008)Tesis doctorales españolas en Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (1978-2013) (2015)Journal Peer Review (1985)The Continued Use of Retracted, Invalid Scientific Literature (1990)A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (1992)Is There Gender Bias in JAMA's Peer Review Process? (1994)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2006)Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study (2019)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (2000)Guidelines for Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals (1988)Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists (1995)The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography (2007)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials (2001)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Tracking the Peer-Review Process (2000)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)Evaluación de la actividad científica a través de indicadores bibliométricos (1999)Guías Europeas de Práctica Clínica en Revista Española de Cardiología. ¿Hacia una completa «globalización» de la asistencia cardiovascular? (2004)Revista española de cardiología 2006. Actividad, diffusion e impacto científico (2006)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods (2005)Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (2005)A review of theory and practice in scientometrics (2015)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2001The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration3,828 cited
  • 1990The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation436 cited
  • 1994Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine324 cited
  • 1990Editorial Peer Review in Biomedical Publication81 cited
  • 2007Producción científica de los urgenciólogos españoles durante los últimos 30 años (1975-2004). Análisis bibliométrico descriptivo17 cited
  • 2004Revista Española de Cardiología 2004: actividad, difusión internacional e impacto científico13 cited
  • 2003Lista de comprobación (checklist) abreviada para la evaluación de artículos de investigación biomédica básica12 cited
  • 2005Procesos de revisión y de edición en Medicina Clínica10 cited
  • 2001No further studies are required: Additional notes on avoiding manuscript rejection10 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