471 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15175712)
1. Double check casts doubt on statistics in published papers.
Pearson H
Nature; 2004 Jun; 429(6991):490. PubMed ID: 15175712
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Making sure corrections don't vanish online.
Shim EH; Parekh V
Nature; 2005 Mar; 434(7029):18; discussion 18. PubMed ID: 15744271
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Power and meaninglessness.
Bogduk N
Pain Med; 2012 Feb; 13(2):148-9. PubMed ID: 22313497
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. How to ensure your paper is rejected by the statistical reviewer.
Stratton IM; Neil A
Diabet Med; 2005 Apr; 22(4):371-3. PubMed ID: 15787658
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design.
Giles J
Nature; 2004 Sep; 431(7005):114. PubMed ID: 15356591
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Bad peer reviewers.
Nature; 2001 Sep; 413(6852):93. PubMed ID: 11557930
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The trouble with replication.
Giles J
Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7101):344-7. PubMed ID: 16871184
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. ArrayExpress service for reviewers/editors of DNA microarray papers.
Brazma A; Parkinson H;
Nat Biotechnol; 2006 Nov; 24(11):1321-2. PubMed ID: 17093465
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Keeping peer-reviewed publication relevant in the internet age.
Randleman JB
J Refract Surg; 2012 Jul; 28(7):447-8. PubMed ID: 22767161
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Learning to review.
Freedman R
J Clin Psychiatry; 2009 Nov; 70(11):1599-600. PubMed ID: 20031100
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. HIV denialists will exploit any journal's tolerance.
Moore JP
Nature; 2004 Feb; 427(6977):777. PubMed ID: 14985731
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Why most published research findings are false: problems in the analysis.
Goodman S; Greenland S
PLoS Med; 2007 Apr; 4(4):e168. PubMed ID: 17456002
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Journals: how to decide what's worth publishing.
Jefferson T; Shashok K
Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):209-10. PubMed ID: 12529609
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Expanding access to published research: open access and self-archiving.
Mower A; Youngkin ME
J Neuroophthalmol; 2008 Mar; 28(1):69-71. PubMed ID: 18347463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Checklists work to improve science.
Nature; 2018 Apr; 556(7701):273-274. PubMed ID: 30967653
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process.
Giles J
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):252. PubMed ID: 16421533
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Who is afraid of reviewers' comments? Or, why anything can be published and anything can be cited.
Ioannidis JP; Tatsioni A; Karassa FB
Eur J Clin Invest; 2010 Apr; 40(4):285-7. PubMed ID: 20486989
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
