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.
134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12887247)
1. The scientific process: new forces attempt to enter the scene. Kinne O Dis Aquat Organ; 2003 Jun; 55(1):1. PubMed ID: 12887247 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. French ethics panel warns of 'crisis' in science reporting. Butler D Nature; 1995 Jul; 376(6536):108. PubMed ID: 7603550 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Van Noorden R Nature; 2011 Oct; 478(7367):26-8. PubMed ID: 21979026 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Our editorial process--some experiences and reflections. Emmelin M; Wall S Scand J Public Health; 2003; 31(3):161-8. PubMed ID: 12850969 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Translation of the scientific method... Peer review. Scarfe WC Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Apr; 109(4):485-7. PubMed ID: 20176497 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. [Lakartidningen's scrutiny routines--equal to the heavies. The peer review system and the expert editorial staff guarantee scientific quality]. Milerad J; Ahlberg J; Bågedahl-Strindlund M; Eliasson M; Fridén B; Håkansson A; Sundberg CJ; Ostergren J Lakartidningen; 2003 Nov; 100(48):3934-6. PubMed ID: 14717088 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. How does peer review work? Aaron L Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The illusion of scientific objectivity and the death of the investigator. Richardson ET; Polyakova A Eur J Clin Invest; 2012 Feb; 42(2):213-5. PubMed ID: 21752023 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Training and experience of peer reviewers: an additional variable to consider. Kulstad E PLoS Med; 2007 Mar; 4(3):e143; author reply e145. PubMed ID: 17388681 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Editorial misconduct. Smith R BMJ; 2003 Jun; 326(7401):1224-5. PubMed ID: 12791712 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Science journals artfully try to boost their rankings. Begley S Wall St J (East Ed); 2006 Jun; ():B1, B8. PubMed ID: 16838450 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Politics and peer review. Magnus D Am J Bioeth; 2004; 4(1):7-8. PubMed ID: 15035920 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Authors' financial interests should be made known to manuscript reviewers. de Melo-Martín I; Intemann K Nature; 2007 Jul; 448(7150):129. PubMed ID: 17625543 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Where did the scientific method go? Noseda M; McLean GR Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Jan; 26(1):28-9. PubMed ID: 18183010 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The role of peer review in FPM. Backer LA Fam Pract Manag; 2012; 19(6):4. PubMed ID: 23317119 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Response to Where did the scientific method go? Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Jan; 26(1):29. PubMed ID: 18183012 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]