Similar articles

• Research papers, gender bias and peer-review.

  Battarbee R. Battarbee R. Biol Lett. 2017 Aug;13(8):20170424. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2017.0424. Epub 2017 Aug 9. Biol Lett. 2017. PMID: 28794278 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• The peer review process III: when the decision is made.

  Riss P. Riss P. Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Jul;23(7):811-2. doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1561-6. Int Urogynecol J. 2012. PMID: 21901436 No abstract available.
• The impact of Hepatology.

  Blei AT. Blei AT. Hepatology. 2004 Jan;39(1):1. doi: 10.1002/hep.20008. Hepatology. 2004. PMID: 14752813 No abstract available.
• Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality.

  Seglen PO. Seglen PO. Allergy. 1997 Nov;52(11):1050-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1997.tb00175.x. Allergy. 1997. PMID: 9404555 Review. No abstract available.
• The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias.

  Opthof T, Coronel R, Janse MJ. Opthof T, et al. Cardiovasc Res. 2002 Dec;56(3):339-46. doi: 10.1016/s0008-6363(02)00712-5. Cardiovasc Res. 2002. PMID: 12445872 Review. No abstract available.