Commentary: PerspectiveS on Pathology Peer Review

Toxicologic Pathology

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 645-646

  Long, Gerald ^a  

^a ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; STANDARD; TOXICOLOGY;

ANIMALS; HUMANS; PATHOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; TOXICOLOGY;

EID: 0030228089     PISSN: 01926233     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/019262339602400520     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Hailey R. (1994). Points of consideration relative to peer review of histological diagnoses. STP Newsletter Fall: 8.
2. Hardisty JF and Eustis SL (1990). Toxicological pathology: a critical stage in study interpretation. In: Progress in Predictive Toxicology, DB Clayson, IC Munro, P Shubik, and JA Swenberg (eds). pp. 41–62.
3. LePore PD (1996). Pathology raw data. Tox. Pathol. 24: 147.
4. Society of Toxicologic Pathologists (1991). Peer review in toxicologic pathology: some recommendations. Tox. Pathol. 19: 290-292.
5. Society of Toxicologic Pathologists’ Position Paper on Audit Trails on Microscopic Pathology Data (1987). Tox. Pathol. 15: 377.