FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2157780454> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2157780454 endingPage "632" @default.
• W2157780454 startingPage "631" @default.
• W2157780454 abstract "HomeRadiologyVol. 244, No. 3 PreviousNext Reviews And CommentaryEditorialsThe RSNA Reviewer Mentorship ProgramRobert G. SheimanRobert G. SheimanAuthor Affiliations1From the Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215. Received May 11, 2007; final version accepted May 14.Address correspondence to: the author (e-mail: [email protected]). Robert G. SheimanPublished Online:Sep 1 2007https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2443070830MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In References1 Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:848–854. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2 Hoppin FG. How I review an original scientific article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:1019–1023. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3 Roberts LW, Coversale J, Edenharder K, Louie A. How to review a manuscript: a “down-to-earth” approach. Acad Psychiatry 2004;28:81–87. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 Ammenwerth E, Wolff AC, Knaup P, et al. Developing and evaluating criteria to help reviewers of biomedical informatics manuscripts. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003;10:512–514. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5 Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328:673. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6 Kliewer MA, Freed KS, DeLong DM, Pickhardt PJ, Provenzale JM. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1731–1735. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7 Kliewer MA, DeLong DM, Freed K, Jenkins CB, Paulson EK, Provenzale JM. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1545–1550. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8 Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998;280:231–233. Medline, Google Scholar9 Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8(8):422–428. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar10 Ernst E, Resch KL. Reviewer bias: blinded experimental study. J Lab Clin Med 1994;124(2):178–182. Medline, Google Scholar11 Rogers LF. Reviewing manuscripts for the AJR. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:1051–1052. Crossref, Google Scholar12 Proto AV. Radiology 2007: reviewing for Radiology. Radiology 2007;244(1):7–11. Link, Google Scholar13 Proto AV. Radiology 2007: evaluating and processing your manuscript for publication. Radiology 2007;244(1):3–6. Link, Google ScholarArticle HistoryPublished in print: 2007 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByImproving the Quality of Manuscript Reviews: Impact of Introducing a Structured Electronic Template to Submit ReviewsArumugamRajesh, GretchenCloud, Mukesh G.Harisinghani2013 | American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 200, No. 1To Review or Not to ReviewArumugamRajesh2011 | American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 196, No. 6AJR Reviewers: Do We Need a Mentoring Process?Thomas H.Berquist2011 | American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 197, No. 1Volunteerism: Essential for AJRThomas H.Berquist2011 | American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 197, No. 4Recommended Articles The Road to Wellness: Engagement Strategies to Help Radiologists Achieve Joy at WorkRadioGraphics2018Volume: 38Issue: 6pp. 1651-1664Customer Service in Radiology: Satisfying Your Patients and ReferrersRadioGraphics2018Volume: 38Issue: 6pp. 1872-1887Special Report of the RSNA COVID-19 Task Force: Crisis Leadership of Major Health System Radiology Departments during COVID-19Radiology2021Volume: 299Issue: 1pp. E187-E192RESPECT: Radiology Employees Striving for Productive and Effective CommunicationRadioGraphics2020Volume: 40Issue: 7pp. 2068-2079Peer Feedback, Learning, and Improvement: Answering the Call of the Institute of Medicine Report on Diagnostic ErrorRadiology2016Volume: 283Issue: 1pp. 231-241See More RSNA Education Exhibits An Interactive Web-based Radiology Career Awareness Program Design For School & Undergraduate Career Labs.Digital Posters2021How To Develop The Best Radiology Clerkship?: A Guide for EducatorsDigital Posters2022Kaizen Process Improvement in Radiology: A Primer for Creating A Culture of Continuous Quality ImprovementDigital Posters2020 RSNA Case Collection Autosomal recessive polycystic kidney diseaseRSNA Case Collection2021Osteoid OsteomaRSNA Case Collection2020Esophageal Fibrovascular PolypRSNA Case Collection2022 Vol. 244, No. 3 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download" @default.
• W2157780454 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2157780454 creator A5019020717 @default.
• W2157780454 date "2007-09-01" @default.
• W2157780454 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2157780454 title "The RSNA Reviewer Mentorship Program" @default.
• W2157780454 cites W174896270 @default.
• W2157780454 cites W1909672288 @default.
• W2157780454 cites W2029832498 @default.
• W2157780454 cites W2053031440 @default.
• W2157780454 cites W2071651075 @default.
• W2157780454 cites W2095301612 @default.
• W2157780454 cites W2126203977 @default.
• W2157780454 cites W2130453155 @default.
• W2157780454 cites W2131576799 @default.
• W2157780454 cites W2142900202 @default.
• W2157780454 cites W2145881968 @default.
• W2157780454 cites W2327955271 @default.
• W2157780454 cites W1988850868 @default.
• W2157780454 doi "https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2443070830" @default.
• W2157780454 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2157780454 type Work @default.
• W2157780454 sameAs 2157780454 @default.
• W2157780454 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2157780454 countsByYear W21577804542013 @default.
• W2157780454 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2157780454 hasAuthorship W2157780454A5019020717 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConcept C2776535583 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConceptScore W2157780454C161191863 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConceptScore W2157780454C17744445 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConceptScore W2157780454C19527891 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConceptScore W2157780454C199539241 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConceptScore W2157780454C2776535583 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConceptScore W2157780454C2779473830 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConceptScore W2157780454C41008148 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConceptScore W2157780454C509550671 @default.
• W2157780454 hasConceptScore W2157780454C71924100 @default.
• W2157780454 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2157780454 hasLocation W21577804541 @default.
• W2157780454 hasOpenAccess W2157780454 @default.
• W2157780454 hasPrimaryLocation W21577804541 @default.
• W2157780454 hasRelatedWork W1895972217 @default.
• W2157780454 hasRelatedWork W1944136716 @default.
• W2157780454 hasRelatedWork W2025644900 @default.
• W2157780454 hasRelatedWork W2104151291 @default.
• W2157780454 hasRelatedWork W2755916441 @default.
• W2157780454 hasRelatedWork W3111647007 @default.
• W2157780454 hasRelatedWork W3113343617 @default.
• W2157780454 hasRelatedWork W4290004724 @default.
• W2157780454 hasRelatedWork W4319460438 @default.
• W2157780454 hasRelatedWork W4381249388 @default.
• W2157780454 hasVolume "244" @default.
• W2157780454 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2157780454 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2157780454 magId "2157780454" @default.
• W2157780454 workType "article" @default.