1 sed databases, introduced in an accompanying
editorial.
2 serve 2 principal functions: evaluative and
editorial.
3 hed, The Lancet chastised Snow in a stinging
editorial.
4 author, and whether the article received an
editorial.
5 riginal studies were chosen over reviews and
editorials.
6 les not reporting original data, and 77 were
editorials.
7 les (336 from 2000 and 335 from 2010) and 89
editorials.
8 alyses, and practice guidelines) (15%-100%),
editorials (
0%-75%), letters to the editor (10%-88%), an
9 Among 43
editorials,
23 (53%) expressed a negative view of generi
10 ed in 103 phase III trials (68.7%) and in 71
editorials (
47.3%).
11 were written predominantly by men: 33 of 38
editorials (
87%) in 2000 and 46 of 51 (90%) in 2010, a d
12 In this introductory
editorial,
a brief history of the project is provided, a
13 p, the PSI SGKB provides a research library,
editorials about new research advances, news and an even
14 In an
Editorial accompanying PLOS Medicine's Special Issue on
15 In an
Editorial accompanying PLOS Medicine's Special Issue on
16 Recent
editorials acknowledge the advancement that hydroxyapati
17 This
editorial addresses the multiple factors involved in can
18 We separately identified
editorials addressing generic substitution.
19 sages reported here, from a survey of Lancet
editorial advisors, suggest that information, research,
20 This Guest
Editorial advocates for expanded health services researc
21 ges in readability parameters involving both
editorial and technical content.
22 A number of
editorials and hard work by many individuals have all re
23 Editorials and related phase III trials published in six
24 After the exclusion of
editorials and reviews, 17 different primary response cr
25 e same topic, of the same type (eg, article,
editorial),
and published in the same year.
26 ferences of articles, letters, commentaries,
editorials,
and books and by contacting experts.
27 nce, case reports, review articles, letters,
editorials,
and case series with fewer than 25 eyes.
28 92, to December, 2001) for studies, reviews,
editorials,
and letters from peer-reviewed journals publ
29 ociation with HRT; reference lists, letters,
editorials,
and reviews were also reviewed.
30 In this guest
editorial,
Andrew Beck discusses the importance of open
31 nce lists of pertinent studies, reviews, and
editorials,
as well as by consulting experts; unpublishe
32 Financial support for medical
editorial assistance was provided by Novartis Pharmaceut
33 ctor associated with positive conclusions by
editorial authors was a positive conclusion by phase III
34 In this
editorial,
authors from the US Food and Drug Administrat
35 ; P = .62), showing a trend toward decreased
editorial authorship by women during the past decade.
36 in ophthalmic literature, but no increase in
editorial authorship.
37 oral research is unlikely to be generated by
editorial biases.
38 Nevertheless, studies of
editorial board composition remain rare, especially thos
39 e writing of this Editorial, the current JCI
Editorial Board has evaluated approximately 7,000 manusc
40 Of the 55 experts, 40 attending the annual
editorial board meeting were given all results; 39 atten
41 n editor, associate editor, reviewer, and/or
editorial board member of various radiology journals and
42 s editors (20%), associate editors (18%), or
editorial board members (60%).
43 I want to thank the
Editorial Board members, the Specialty Editors, and the
44 I want to thank the
Editorial Board members, the Specialty Editors, and the
45 sites, as well as those selected by the JACC
Editorial Board members.
46 sites, as well as those selected by the JACC
Editorial Board members.
47 that I have been at the helm of the Duke-UNC
Editorial Board of the Journal of Clinical Investigation
48 erformed by reviewers who were members of an
editorial board were rated of poorer quality by authors.
49 Three members of PLOS Medicine's
editorial board who are leading researchers in implement
50 upport service bulletin boards including the
Editorial Board's list of high-impact papers, informatio
51 nternational representation on the 1985-2014
editorial boards of 24 environmental biology journals.
52 Of 302 US surgeons on the
editorial boards of 5 leading surgical journals, 6 were
53 e American Board of Medical Specialties, and
editorial boards of leading surgical journals.
54 The scholars comprising journal
editorial boards play a critical role in defining the tr
55 ose that all stakeholders, including journal
editorial boards, reviewers, and researchers, should und
56 ew ideas is encouraged ..." Read more in the
Editorial by Ian Manners.
57 on scholarly integrity ..." Read more in the
Editorial by J.
58 e to advance knowledge ..." Read more in the
Editorial by Joseph S.
59 ct and report research ..." Read more in the
Editorial by Mattias Bjornmalm and Frank Caruso.
60 creening centers ..." Read more in the Guest
Editorial by Richard A.
61 the transition from life at the bench to an
editorial career.
62 We excluded reviews, letters,
editorials,
case reports, small case series, and manuscr
63 (See the
Editorial Commentary by Jehan and Qazi on pages 190-1) B
64 (See the
Editorial Commentary by Jehan and Qazi on pages 190-1) I
65 (See the
Editorial Commentary by Martin on pages 368-9.)Using pop
66 cle pleads for scientific, health policy and
editorial communities to be more consistent in the use o
67 The size of the
editorial community increased over time-the number of ed
68 We have weekly
editorial conferences where the Associate Editors, Rebec
69 nsky to address some recurring topics in our
editorial conferences.
70 Editorial consultants from ACP Smart Medicine and MKSAP
71 Editorial consultants from ACP Smart Medicine and MKSAP
72 Editorial consultants from PIER and MKSAP provide expert
73 In this report, we analyze the tone of the
editorial content from 1923 to 2013 in a historical cont
74 time, preserving the in-house curators' full
editorial control.
75 In a Guest
Editorial,
Cosetta Minelli and Gianluca Baio explain how
76 or to generic drugs, a substantial number of
editorials counsel against the interchangeability of gen
77 All submissions were linked to the final
editorial decision (accept vs reject).
78 We compared the initial
editorial decision (accept, minor revision, major revisi
79 he degree to which the review influenced the
editorial decision (mean difference, -0.1; 95% CI,-0.3 t
80 for acceptance (R=-0.34) and congruence with
editorial decision (R=0.26).
81 ast satisfied with the letter explaining the
editorial decision (rejected/no review, 2.8 [1.2] vs acc
82 dical research and its relation to the final
editorial decision.
83 All
editorial decisions at eLife are taken by working scient
84 viewer- and editor-level factors influencing
editorial decisions at the journal Stroke.
85 of Emergency Medicine and had received final
editorial decisions during the study period.
86 Finally,
editorial decisions on manuscripts reviewed by author-su
87 This
Editorial describes new enhanced scope of The American J
88 This
editorial discusses the rise of computational pathology
89 i as the next editor in chief, I pass on the
editorial duties for the JCI to him and his team at John
90 s generally are ignoring guidelines, and the
editorial endorsement is yet to be effectively implement
91 iewed, percentage of time spent in research,
editorial experience, or academic rank (odds ratio [OR],
92 nts with the virus, Science is publishing an
Editorial Expression of Concern about the Lombardi et al
93 This
Editorial Expression of Concern is to inform readers abo
94 e investigations, Science is publishing this
Editorial Expression of Concern to alert our readers to
95 ference between the 2 journals in numbers or
editorial fate of the manuscripts.
96 eir views on the experience of being an RSNA
Editorial Fellow, accomplishments achieved after the fel
97 We found that almost all previous RSNA
Editorial Fellows (15 of 16, 94%) stayed in academic rad
98 For the past 16 years, the selected RSNA
Editorial Fellows have learned essential processes invol
99 ear of the journal Radiology, several former
editorial fellows were interested in knowing what the pr
100 Among the 16 previous
editorial fellows who responded, there are four chairs a
101 rial Fellowship was sent to 19 previous RSNA
Editorial Fellows.
102 The
editorial fellowship for radiology attending physicians
103 Olmsted
Editorial Fellowship for Trainees, in honor of the most
104 Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
Editorial Fellowship has been offering unique opportunit
105 ence and knowledge they gained from the RSNA
Editorial Fellowship was crucial for their academic and
106 tation to share their experience of the RSNA
Editorial Fellowship was sent to 19 previous RSNA Editor
107 Eyler
Editorial Fellowship, in honor of the founding editor of
108 Retraction: The following
editorial from HEPATOLOGY, "I148M PNPLA3 variant and pro
109 In their
editorial function, they try to ensure transparent (by w
110 Both the evaluative and
editorial functions go largely unnoticed by the public--
111 In this month's
Editorial,
Guest Editors Carol Brayne and Bruce Miller d
112 The correct version of the
Editorial has been issued under a separate DOI, 10.1002/
113 g-term follow-up studies, meta-analyses, and
editorials have been published in regard to the effect o
114 In this month's
Editorial,
Health Commissioner of the City of Baltimore
115 This
editorial highlights a variety of changes in physician s
116 This
Editorial highlights the reviews in the Breast Cancer Th
117 This Guest
Editorial highlights the reviews in the Race in Cancer H
118 This
Editorial highlights the value of The American Journal o
119 A recent
editorial in Critical Care Medicine was titled "Glutamin
120 In a 1991
editorial in The FASEB Journal, Robert W. Krauss comment
121 As highlighted in a recent
editorial in the Journal, the research area of "-omics"
122 EJM and 18.8 percent of the authors of guest
editorials in JAMA were women.
123 n 2004, 11.4 percent of the authors of guest
editorials in NEJM and 18.8 percent of the authors of gu
124 was also determined for the authors of guest
editorials in NEJM and JAMA.
125 On the basis of a review of
editorials in New England Journal of Medicine and Journa
126 f the authors of original research and guest
editorials in the journals studied.
127 d with several studies and three conflicting
editorials in the literature.
128 (median, 28.6% [range, 16.7% to 100.0%]) and
editorial independence (median, 75.0% [range, 8.3% to 10
129 opment" (up 37.6%, from 30.7% to 68.3%) and "
Editorial Independence" (up 52.7%, from 20.9% to 73.6%).
130 ly, newer GLs only scored clearly better in "
Editorial independence" and "Global evaluation." In AIT-
131 The majority of guidelines scored low on
editorial independence, and only seven CPGs were based o
132 in rigor of development, applicability, and
editorial independence.
133 Editorials,
individual case studies, studies enrolling f
134 Editorial input varies from none to intense.
135 Editorial insistence on using reporting guidelines would
136 dictionaries or thesauri, let alone by later
editorial interference.
137 This
Editorial introduces readers to the US National Institut
138 This
Editorial introduces the Lung Ontogeny and Injury Theme
139 This Guest
Editorial introduces the Regenerative Medicine Theme Iss
140 This Guest
Editorial introduces this month's special Infectious Dis
141 This Guest
Editorial introduces this month's special Liver Pathobio
142 This Guest
Editorial introduces this month's special Neural Regener
143 This
Editorial introduces this month's special Neuropathology
144 In this Guest
Editorial,
Jeremy Niven and Lars Chittka introduce our s
145 JID has thrived as the strength of its
editorial leadership and the quality of dermatologic sci
146 and the number of complex publication types,
editorials,
letters, and case reports.
147 were excluded if they were review articles,
editorials,
letters, or case reports.
148 Editorial management of articles on health economics may
149 Altogether, this
Editorial narrates the history of this fundamental conce
150 act for this article has been revised by the
editorial office; please review and approve or correct a
151 strict leaders on the numbers of deaths, and
editorials on the failure of the national malaria contro
152 It includes two
editorials,
one that discusses COMBREX, a new exciting p
153 Recent meta-analyses were reviewed, expert
editorial opinion collated, and the Web site of the Norm
154 as well as meta-analyses or those that were
editorial or commentary in nature.
155 cally analyzed to improve the quality of the
editorial or peer review process.
156 Although numerous
editorials or commentaries have been previously publishe
157 We excluded
editorials or reviews containing no primary data, sample
158 ffects in units other than QALYs and review,
editorial,
or methodologic articles were excluded.
159 mmunosuppressed populations, review article,
editorial,
or nonhuman studies.
160 eviews, perspectives, theoretical treatises,
editorials,
or letters.
161 Investigators, publishers, editors, and
editorial organisations all have important parts to play
162 and contributors, and must be balanced with
editorial oversight for balance and bias.
163 science; P=0.19), whether an article had an
editorial (
P=0.87), or whether the corresponding author
164 Although editors' statements on
editorial peer review are similar, there are differences
165 es also indicates that those involved in the
editorial peer-review process must have sound statistica
166 In this month's
editorial,
PLOS Medicine's Chief Editor Larry Peiperl di
167 e presentation of data, and changing journal
editorial policies.
168 orroborative studies has now become official
editorial policy for at least 2 journals, and several mo
169 Fewer women in public health hold
editorial positions than are authors and reviewers.
170 announcing new procedures to streamline its
editorial process and eliminate unnecessary delays.
171 To aid the
editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimatel
172 To aid the
editorial process and readers of prediction model studie
173 s commentary will give some insight into the
editorial process at the American Journal of Epidemiolog
174 he BMJ editors improve the efficiency of the
editorial process but had no impact on the quality of ec
175 ssional technical editors suggest that their
editorial processes are associated with increases in rea
176 lected comparative studies of the effects of
editorial processes on original research articles betwee
177 ublished in English and removing reviews and
editorials produced 153 relevant manuscripts.
178 This
Editorial provides a list of major challenges for the fu
179 100 articles per journal, per year, and all
editorials published in both years.
180 This
editorial review examines the diverse approaches between
181 The purpose of this
editorial review is to identify and comment on factors c
182 nd that can be used interactively for expert
editorial review.
183 ve been resolved after further revisions and
editorial review.
184 ected in the publications, including several
editorials,
reviewed.
185 Clinical and Experimental Allergy including
editorials,
reviews, opinion articles, guidelines, lette
186 ve change as a result of the peer review and
editorial revision processes.
187 In January's Guest
Editorial,
Sarah Stock and Jenny Myers discuss approache
188 Editorial screening is now journal policy.
189 tions, his stimulating mentorship, his broad
editorial services, and his continuous-and highly infect
190 Having investigators who are not on the
editorial staff or peer reviewers extract the manuscript
191 Investigation marks the transition to a new
editorial team from Johns Hopkins University.
192 hors (most commonly a member of the Cochrane
editorial team), and 9 (2%) had evidence of both honorar
193 Journal of Pathology and introduces its new
editorial team.
194 Editorial teams and regulatory bodies should perform qua
195 , and the ways in which authors and Cochrane
editorial teams contribute.
196 The
editorial teams contributed in a wide variety of ways to
197 The Cochrane
editorial teams contributed to most Cochrane reviews.
198 listed in the byline and members of Cochrane
editorial teams, and identification of methods of assign
199 As of the writing of this
Editorial,
the current JCI Editorial Board has evaluated
200 In the year-end
editorial,
the PLOS Medicine editors ask 11 researchers
201 For the 2016 end-of-the-year
editorial,
the PLOS Medicine editors asked 7 global heal
202 In this
editorial we thus describe a quantitative paradigm for r
203 In this
Editorial,
we briefly overview the history of allostery,
204 For
editorials,
we categorized authors' positions on generic
205 were retrieved: 150 phase III trials and 150
editorials were eligible.
206 Editorials were written predominantly by men: 33 of 38 e
207 This
editorial will provide introductory comments to a series