208 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15988495)
1. Thoughtful peer review is worth the time it takes.
Michalet X
Nature; 2005 Jun; 435(7046):1160. PubMed ID: 15988495
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Post-publication review could aid skills and quality.
Gibson TA
Nature; 2007 Jul; 448(7152):408. PubMed ID: 17653166
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
van Loon AJ
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
Jaffe K
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
Korngreen A
Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7066):282. PubMed ID: 16292281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Impact factors: target the funding bodies.
Insall R
Nature; 2003 Jun; 423(6940):585. PubMed ID: 12789312
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
Wadman M
Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The secrets of success.
Smaglik P
Nature; 2004 Nov; 432(7014):253. PubMed ID: 15538377
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Discourse among referees and editors would help.
Lahiri DK
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482130
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
Naqvi KR
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322504
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. A simple system of checks and balances to cut fraud.
Yang X; Eggan K; Seidel G; Jaenisch R; Melton D
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482128
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Supporting the future.
Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7198):958. PubMed ID: 18563096
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Three cheers for peers.
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7073):118. PubMed ID: 16407911
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Standards for papers on cloning.
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):243. PubMed ID: 16421524
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Research funding: Making the cut.
Powell K
Nature; 2010 Sep; 467(7314):383-5. PubMed ID: 20864969
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Peer review reviewed.
Nature; 2007 Sep; 449(7159):115. PubMed ID: 17851475
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Scandals stem from the low priority of peer review.
Connerade JP
Nature; 2004 Jan; 427(6971):196. PubMed ID: 14724609
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Sitting in judgement.
Check E
Nature; 2002 Sep; 419(6905):332-3. PubMed ID: 12353003
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Confidential reports may improve peer review.
Cintas P
Nature; 2004 Mar; 428(6980):255. PubMed ID: 15029169
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. How do impact factors relate to the real world?
Skórka P
Nature; 2003 Oct; 425(6959):661. PubMed ID: 14562076
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
