Similar articles

• Responding to peer reviews: pointers that authors don't learn in school.

  Algase DL. Algase DL. Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2008;22(4):219-21. Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2008. PMID: 19093658 No abstract available.
• When R & R is not rest & recovery but revise & resubmit.

  Bearinger LH, Taliaferro L, Given B. Bearinger LH, et al. Res Nurs Health. 2010 Oct;33(5):381-5. doi: 10.1002/nur.20398. Res Nurs Health. 2010. PMID: 20827742 No abstract available.
• Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.

  Mohr WK. Mohr WK. Nurs Outlook. 2009 Sep-Oct;57(5):239. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2009.02.002. Nurs Outlook. 2009. PMID: 19789000 No abstract available.
• Conceptual debates and empirical evidence about the peer review process for scholarly journals.

  Thomas SP. Thomas SP. J Prof Nurs. 2011 May-Jun;27(3):168-73. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2010.09.015. J Prof Nurs. 2011. PMID: 21596357 Review.
• Who will appraise the appraisers?--The paper, the instrument and the user.

  Booth A. Booth A. Health Info Libr J. 2007 Mar;24(1):72-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00703.x. Health Info Libr J. 2007. PMID: 17331148 Review. No abstract available.