259 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16292281)
1. Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
Korngreen A
Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7066):282. PubMed ID: 16292281
[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. Ratings games.
Nature; 2005 Aug; 436(7053):889-90. PubMed ID: 16107794
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Citation rate unrelated to journals' impact factors.
Waheed AA
Nature; 2003 Dec; 426(6966):495. PubMed ID: 14654813
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The system rewards a dishonest approach.
Brookfield J
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774095
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Reviewing should be shown in publication list.
Clausen T; Nielsen OB
Nature; 2003 Feb; 421(6924):689. PubMed ID: 12610595
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
van Loon AJ
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Double-blind review: easy to guess in specialist fields.
Lane D
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322503
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Improving science through online commentary.
Eagleman DM; Holcombe AO
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6935):15. PubMed ID: 12721598
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
Jaffe K
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Who stands to lose from double-blind review?
Garvalov BK
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322505
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. The secrets of success.
Smaglik P
Nature; 2004 Nov; 432(7014):253. PubMed ID: 15538377
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
Wadman M
Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Impact factors aren't top journals' sole attraction.
Törnqvist TE
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774096
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Challenging the tyranny of impact factors.
Colquhoun D
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):479; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774093
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Impact factors: target the funding bodies.
Insall R
Nature; 2003 Jun; 423(6940):585. PubMed ID: 12789312
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Quality evaluation needs some better quality tools.
Döring TF
Nature; 2007 Feb; 445(7129):709. PubMed ID: 17301769
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
