These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12840730)
41. Readers' and author's responses to "are traditional peer-reviewed medical articles obsolete?". Ward JA MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):70. PubMed ID: 16967524 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
42. Readers' and author's responses to "are traditional peer-reviewed medical articles obsolete?". Giustini D MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):70. PubMed ID: 16967522 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
43. The real dirty secret of academic publishing. Svetlov V Nature; 2004 Oct; 431(7011):897. PubMed ID: 15496892 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
44. Experts plan to reclaim the web for pop science. Butler D Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7076):516-7. PubMed ID: 16452941 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
45. Reporting of randomized clinical trials and other population-based research: a priority of Archives of Neurology. Shoulson I; Rosenberg RN Arch Neurol; 2004 Jan; 61(1):20-1. PubMed ID: 14732613 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
46. Journals should set a new standard in transparency. Dellavalle RP; Lundahl K; Freeman SR; Schilling LM Nature; 2007 Jan; 445(7126):364. PubMed ID: 17251958 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
47. [The real value of the impact factors]. Puche RC Medicina (B Aires); 2003; 63(4):355-7. PubMed ID: 14518150 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. Are traditional peer-reviewed medical articles obsolete? Frishauf P MedGenMed; 2006 Jan; 8(1):5. PubMed ID: 16915135 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. Peer review: "a critique of the critics". Andersson KE J Urol; 2011 Sep; 186(3):777-8. PubMed ID: 21788036 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. Improving the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery. Carney S Int J Surg; 2007 Dec; 5(6):376. PubMed ID: 18063433 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. Copied citations give impact factors a boost. Clarke T Nature; 2003 May; 423(6938):373. PubMed ID: 12761513 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. Reinterpreting the fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Dellavalle RP; Harrison C J Am Acad Dermatol; 2008 Oct; 59(4):723-4. PubMed ID: 18793947 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. Innovation, journal reviewers, and journal editors the game is worth the candle. Popp RL J Am Coll Cardiol; 2005 Oct; 46(7):1360-1. PubMed ID: 16198856 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
58. The matter of standards. III. The editorial process. Wilkins AS Bioessays; 2008 Nov; 30(11-12):1037-9. PubMed ID: 18937297 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
59. A new system to change "the system": an answer to calls to supplement citation metrics with other measures of scientific contribution. Moore A Bioessays; 2011 Nov; 33(11):785. PubMed ID: 22006820 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. Lessons drawn from the critique of the Hissom closure evaluation. Fujiura GT Ment Retard; 2006 Oct; 44(5):372-5. PubMed ID: 16970520 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]