150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12610595)
1. Reviewing should be shown in publication list.
Clausen T; Nielsen OB
Nature; 2003 Feb; 421(6924):689. PubMed ID: 12610595
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
Korngreen A
Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7066):282. PubMed ID: 16292281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Journals: redundant publications are bad news.
Mojon-Azzi SM; Jiang X; Wagner U; Mojon DS
Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):209. PubMed ID: 12529610
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. A simple system of checks and balances to cut fraud.
Yang X; Eggan K; Seidel G; Jaenisch R; Melton D
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482128
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
Naqvi KR
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322504
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Citation rate unrelated to journals' impact factors.
Waheed AA
Nature; 2003 Dec; 426(6966):495. PubMed ID: 14654813
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Impact factors aren't top journals' sole attraction.
Törnqvist TE
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774096
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Challenging the tyranny of impact factors.
Colquhoun D
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):479; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774093
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Korean scandal will have global fallout.
Check E; Cyranoski D
Nature; 2005 Dec; 438(7071):1056-7. PubMed ID: 16371963
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Editors are meant to be judges, not postmen.
Michell B
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):479-80; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774094
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Post-publication review could aid skills and quality.
Gibson TA
Nature; 2007 Jul; 448(7152):408. PubMed ID: 17653166
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The system rewards a dishonest approach.
Brookfield J
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774095
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The politics of publication.
Lawrence PA
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6929):259-61. PubMed ID: 12646895
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Ratings games.
Nature; 2005 Aug; 436(7053):889-90. PubMed ID: 16107794
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
van Loon AJ
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The do's and don't's of submitting scientific papers.
Walsh PJ; Mommsen TP; Nilsson GE
Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol; 2009 Mar; 152(3):203-4. PubMed ID: 19146976
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Penalties plus high-quality review to fight plagiarism.
Wittmaack K
Nature; 2005 Jul; 436(7047):24. PubMed ID: 16001039
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Thoughtful peer review is worth the time it takes.
Michalet X
Nature; 2005 Jun; 435(7046):1160. PubMed ID: 15988495
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Double-blind review: easy to guess in specialist fields.
Lane D
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322503
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Who stands to lose from double-blind review?
Garvalov BK
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322505
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
