180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14760395)
1. Trading scientific freedom.
Nat Med; 2004 Feb; 10(2):107. PubMed ID: 14760395
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. US pressures publishers to honor trade embargoes.
Wickware P
Nat Med; 2004 Feb; 10(2):109. PubMed ID: 14760397
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Extension of US trade embargoes to science editing.
Habibzadeh F
Lancet; 2004 Apr; 363(9415):1160. PubMed ID: 15064039
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Scholarly publishing. U.S. eases the squeeze on 'sanctioned' authors.
Bhattacharjee Y
Science; 2004 Apr; 304(5668):187. PubMed ID: 15073341
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Publishers split over response to US trade embargo ruling.
Brumfiel G
Nature; 2004 Feb; 427(6976):663. PubMed ID: 14973440
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Publishing. U.S. trade policy creates confusion over co-authorship.
Bhattacharjee Y
Science; 2004 Jun; 304(5676):1422. PubMed ID: 15178769
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. A welcome retreat at Treasury.
Kennedy D
Science; 2004 Apr; 304(5668):171. PubMed ID: 15073338
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Disruption to science in developing countries.
Barcinski MA
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774097
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Next steps in the Schön affair.
Kennedy D
Science; 2002 Oct; 298(5593):495. PubMed ID: 12386303
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Figureheads, ghost-writers and pseudonymous quant bloggers: the recent evolution of authorship in science publishing.
Charlton BG
Med Hypotheses; 2008 Oct; 71(4):475-80. PubMed ID: 18755552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. A perspective on scientific peer review for informing regulatory decisions: making sure peer review makes a difference.
Greenbaum D
Risk Anal; 2006 Feb; 26(1):17-9. PubMed ID: 16492174
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Scientific peer review to inform regulatory decision making: leadership responsibilities and cautions.
Patton DE; Olin SS
Risk Anal; 2006 Feb; 26(1):5-16. PubMed ID: 16492173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Knowledge on feet of clay].
Dahlqvist R
Lakartidningen; 2008 May 7-13; 105(19):1405-6. PubMed ID: 18574980
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Science fraud: from patchwork mouse to patchwork data.
Weissmann G
FASEB J; 2006 Apr; 20(6):587-90. PubMed ID: 16581962
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. [The journals must honestly tell who is doing the job].
Bergström R
Lakartidningen; 2008 May 7-13; 105(19):1406-7. PubMed ID: 18574981
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines.
Claxton LD
Mutat Res; 2005 Jan; 589(1):31-45. PubMed ID: 15652225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. U.S. science dominance is the wrong issue.
Leshner AI
Science; 2004 Oct; 306(5694):197. PubMed ID: 15472042
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. NIH revises rules of conflict of interest of grant peer reviewers.
Shalev M
Lab Anim (NY); 2004 Mar; 33(3):15-6. PubMed ID: 15235618
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
