364 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12774095)
21. Penalties plus high-quality review to fight plagiarism.
Wittmaack K
Nature; 2005 Jul; 436(7047):24. PubMed ID: 16001039
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Swift publication would reward good reviewers.
Koonin EV
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6930):374. PubMed ID: 12660754
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Judge a paper on its own merits, not its journal's.
Zhang SD
Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7098):26. PubMed ID: 16823431
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Retractions' realities.
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6927):1. PubMed ID: 12621394
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process.
Giles J
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):252. PubMed ID: 16421533
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Why and how to avoid a desk-rejection.
Lake ET
Res Nurs Health; 2020 Apr; 43(2):141-142. PubMed ID: 32103510
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
Korngreen A
Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7066):282. PubMed ID: 16292281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Journals: how to decide what's worth publishing.
Jefferson T; Shashok K
Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):209-10. PubMed ID: 12529609
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. The trouble with replication.
Giles J
Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7101):344-7. PubMed ID: 16871184
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Pressure also leads to worthless publications.
de Carvalho LB
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482133
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Journals under pressure: publish, and be damned.
Adam D; Knight J
Nature; 2002 Oct; 419(6909):772-6. PubMed ID: 12397323
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Manuscript processing 101: problems and solutions.
DiBartola S; Hinchcliff K
J Vet Intern Med; 1999; 13(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 10052055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Transparency showcases strength of peer review.
Pulverer B
Nature; 2010 Nov; 468(7320):29-31. PubMed ID: 21048742
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Confidential reports may improve peer review.
Cintas P
Nature; 2004 Mar; 428(6980):255. PubMed ID: 15029169
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Checklists work to improve science.
Nature; 2018 Apr; 556(7701):273-274. PubMed ID: 30967653
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Second thoughts on who goes where in author lists.
Laurance WF
Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7098):26. PubMed ID: 16823429
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. [How to reward and stimulate the task of reviewing scientific articles?].
Muccioli C; Campos M; Goldchmit M; Dantas PE; Bechara SJ; Costa VP
Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2007; 70(1):5. PubMed ID: 17505710
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
