455 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12736656)
1. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
van Loon AJ
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Impact factors: target the funding bodies.
Insall R
Nature; 2003 Jun; 423(6940):585. PubMed ID: 12789312
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Three cheers for peers.
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7073):118. PubMed ID: 16407911
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The politics of publication.
Lawrence PA
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6929):259-61. PubMed ID: 12646895
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Citation rate unrelated to journals' impact factors.
Waheed AA
Nature; 2003 Dec; 426(6966):495. PubMed ID: 14654813
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Confidential reports may improve peer review.
Cintas P
Nature; 2004 Mar; 428(6980):255. PubMed ID: 15029169
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
Jaffe K
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Impact factors reward and promote excellence.
Lomnicki A
Nature; 2003 Jul; 424(6948):487. PubMed ID: 12891329
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Scandals stem from the low priority of peer review.
Connerade JP
Nature; 2004 Jan; 427(6971):196. PubMed ID: 14724609
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The system rewards a dishonest approach.
Brookfield J
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774095
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments.
Ploegh H
Nature; 2011 Apr; 472(7344):391. PubMed ID: 21525890
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The trouble with replication.
Giles J
Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7101):344-7. PubMed ID: 16871184
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Challenging the tyranny of impact factors.
Colquhoun D
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):479; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774093
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Should journals police scientific fraud?
Marris E
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7076):520-1. PubMed ID: 16452946
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Impact factors aren't top journals' sole attraction.
Törnqvist TE
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774096
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
Clarke SP
Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Reviewers' reports should in turn be peer reviewed.
List A
Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7098):26. PubMed ID: 16823432
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Transparency showcases strength of peer review.
Pulverer B
Nature; 2010 Nov; 468(7320):29-31. PubMed ID: 21048742
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
