152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14760397)
1. US pressures publishers to honor trade embargoes.
Wickware P
Nat Med; 2004 Feb; 10(2):109. PubMed ID: 14760397
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Trading scientific freedom.
Nat Med; 2004 Feb; 10(2):107. PubMed ID: 14760395
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Extension of US trade embargoes to science editing.
Habibzadeh F
Lancet; 2004 Apr; 363(9415):1160. PubMed ID: 15064039
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. A welcome retreat at Treasury.
Kennedy D
Science; 2004 Apr; 304(5668):171. PubMed ID: 15073338
[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. U.S. trade policy. Editing ban to be eased, but Cuban travel blocked.
Bhattacharjee Y
Science; 2004 Mar; 303(5665):1742. PubMed ID: 15031462
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. A relapse of joining.
William Lineaweaver C
Microsurgery; 2005; 25(4):245-6. PubMed ID: 15981235
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Open access mandate threatens dissemination of scientific information.
McMullan E
J Neuroophthalmol; 2008 Mar; 28(1):72-4. PubMed ID: 18347464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Two opportunities to improve public health through US trade policy.
Bohme SR
Int J Occup Environ Health; 2010; 16(3):357-9. PubMed ID: 20662428
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 'Contrary' trade sanctions worry malaria researchers.
Butler D
Nature; 2001 May; 411(6837):510. PubMed ID: 11385523
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. U.S. science dominance is the wrong issue.
Leshner AI
Science; 2004 Oct; 306(5694):197. PubMed ID: 15472042
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The crisis in scholarly publishing: open access to the rescue?
Oren GA
J Neuroophthalmol; 2008 Mar; 28(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 18347450
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Legislating peer review in the Endangered Species Act.
Male T
Risk Anal; 2006 Feb; 26(1):33-5. PubMed ID: 16492177
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Global science and U.S. security.
Galas DJ; Riggs H
Science; 2003 Jun; 300(5627):1847. PubMed ID: 12817110
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Global trade, public health, and health services: stakeholders' constructions of the key issues.
Waitzkin H; Jasso-Aguilar R; Landwehr A; Mountain C
Soc Sci Med; 2005 Sep; 61(5):893-906. PubMed ID: 15955394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The importance of peer review.
Wheeler HL; Wheeler WB
J Agric Food Chem; 2006 Nov; 54(24):8983. PubMed ID: 17117781
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
