238 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11079920)
41. The peer review process of the Journal.
White MC
Am J Infect Control; 1993 Dec; 21(6):279-82. PubMed ID: 8122798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Tracking the peer-review process.
Campion EW; Curfman GD; Drazen JM
N Engl J Med; 2000 Nov; 343(20):1485-6. PubMed ID: 11078775
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
43. [Preprints in biomedicine: alternative or complement to the traditional model of publication?].
Aquino-Jarquin G; Valencia-Reyes JM; Silva-Carmona A; Granados-Riverón JT
Gac Med Mex; 2018; 154(1):87-91. PubMed ID: 29420515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. A look inside the Pharos review process.
Harris ED
Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc; 2003; 66(2):36-7. PubMed ID: 12838637
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
45. It Is Time to Re-Evaluate the Peer Review Process for Preclinical Research.
Bhattacharya R; Ellis LM
Bioessays; 2018 Jan; 40(1):. PubMed ID: 29226979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. CDR Review's editorial process: a survey of papers published in 1995.
Handysides S
Commun Dis Rep CDR Rev; 1996 Nov; 6(12):R176-8. PubMed ID: 8972982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Peer review practices in biomedical literature: a time for change?
Mahawar KK; Kejariwal D; Malviya A; Birla R; Viswanath YK
Asian J Surg; 2009 Oct; 32(4):240-6. PubMed ID: 19892628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. The art and science of reviewing manuscripts for orthopaedic journals: Part I. Defining the review.
Levine AM; Heckman JD; Hensinger RN
Instr Course Lect; 2004; 53():679-88. PubMed ID: 15116658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. HIV denialists will exploit any journal's tolerance.
Moore JP
Nature; 2004 Feb; 427(6977):777. PubMed ID: 14985731
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. The rites of writing papers: steps to successful publishing for psychiatrists.
Brakoulias V; Macfarlane MD; Looi JC
Australas Psychiatry; 2015 Feb; 23(1):32-6. PubMed ID: 25469001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Publish peer reviews.
Polka JK; Kiley R; Konforti B; Stern B; Vale RD
Nature; 2018 Aug; 560(7720):545-547. PubMed ID: 30158621
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. The rush to publish.
Ronai Z
Pigment Cell Melanoma Res; 2011 Oct; 24(5):873. PubMed ID: 21981930
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. Publication ethics.
Hays JC
Public Health Nurs; 2009; 26(3):205-6. PubMed ID: 19386055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. Effectiveness of a reference accuracy strategy for peer-reviewed journal articles.
Speck KE; St Pierre Schneider B
Nurse Educ; 2013; 38(6):265-8. PubMed ID: 24157676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Retractions' realities.
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6927):1. PubMed ID: 12621394
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
56. Conceptual debates and empirical evidence about the peer review process for scholarly journals.
Thomas SP
J Prof Nurs; 2011; 27(3):168-73. PubMed ID: 21596357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Dangers of over-dependence on peer-reviewed publication.
Nature; 1999 Oct; 401(6755):727. PubMed ID: 10548083
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
58. The garbage collectors: could a particular sector of author-pays journals become silently acknowledged collectors of scientific waste?
Moore A
Bioessays; 2009 Aug; 31(8):821. PubMed ID: 19609967
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
59. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review.
Teixeira da Silva JA; Dobránszki J
Account Res; 2015; 22(1):22-40. PubMed ID: 25275622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Scientific publishing. Peer review and quality: a dubious connection?
Enserink M
Science; 2001 Sep; 293(5538):2187-8. PubMed ID: 11567115
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
