143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14573448)
1. The fallacy of double-blinded peer review.
Liebeskind DS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Nov; 181(5):1422; author reply 1422-3. PubMed ID: 14573448
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies.
Katz DS; Proto AV; Olmsted WW
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Dec; 179(6):1415-7. PubMed ID: 12438028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Manuscripts: to blind, or not to blind, that is the question.
Rogers LF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Dec; 179(6):1373. PubMed ID: 12438019
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige.
Okike K; Hug KT; Kocher MS; Leopold SS
JAMA; 2016 Sep; 316(12):1315-6. PubMed ID: 27673310
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Authorship.
Watts C
Surg Neurol; 2009 Jul; 72(1):99. PubMed ID: 19559939
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. [Authorship and co-authorship].
Haug C
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2006 Feb; 126(4):429. PubMed ID: 16477275
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Retractions' realities.
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6927):1. PubMed ID: 12621394
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The perils of the least publishable unit.
J Refract Surg; 2012 Sep; 28(9):601-2. PubMed ID: 22947284
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Impact factors aren't top journals' sole attraction.
Törnqvist TE
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774096
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. QUAD system offers fair shares to all authors.
Verhagen JV; Wallace KJ; Collins SC; Scott TR
Nature; 2003 Dec; 426(6967):602. PubMed ID: 14668833
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
Kennedy MS
Am J Nurs; 2009 Dec; 109(12):7. PubMed ID: 19935148
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Authors, industry, and review articles.
DeMaria AN
J Am Coll Cardiol; 2004 Mar; 43(6):1130-1. PubMed ID: 15028380
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Consensus statement on surgery journal authorship--2006.
Surgical Journal Editors Group
Surgery; 2006 Jun; 139(6):11A-12A. PubMed ID: 16782423
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Consensus statement on surgery journal authorship--2006.
Surgical Journal Editors Group
J Pediatr Surg; 2006 Jun; 41(6):1041-2. PubMed ID: 16769330
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Consensus statement on surgery journal authorship--2006.
World J Surg; 2006 Jun; 30(6):1135-6. PubMed ID: 16736348
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability.
Davidoff F; DeAngelis CD; Drazen JM; Nicholls MG; Hoey J; Højgaard L; Horton R; Kotzin S; Nylenna M; Overbeke AJ; Sox HC; Van Der Weyden MB; Wilkes MS
N Engl J Med; 2001 Sep; 345(11):825-6; discussion 826-7. PubMed ID: 11556304
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Disruption to science in developing countries.
Barcinski MA
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774097
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
