147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16338483)
1. Who really wrote your paper?
Johnson M
Nurse Educ Today; 2006 Jan; 26(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 16338483
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
Clarke SP
Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. On ethical peer review and publication: the importance of professional conduct and communication.
Spear HJ
Nurse Author Ed; 2004; 14(4):1-3. PubMed ID: 15551686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Responding to peer reviews: pointers that authors don't learn in school.
Algase DL
Res Theory Nurs Pract; 2008; 22(4):219-21. PubMed ID: 19093658
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Manuscript revision strategies.
Conn VS
West J Nurs Res; 2007 Nov; 29(7):786-8. PubMed ID: 17968004
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
Mohr WK
Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(5):239. PubMed ID: 19789000
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Keeping up journal integrity: the peer-review process.
Moore KN
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs; 2005; 32(1):3-5. PubMed ID: 15718949
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. When R & R is not rest & recovery but revise & resubmit.
Bearinger LH; Taliaferro L; Given B
Res Nurs Health; 2010 Oct; 33(5):381-5. PubMed ID: 20827742
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Fabrication, falsification and plagiarism and clearly involves intention to deceive.
Traystman RJ
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab; 2005 Mar; 25(3):291. PubMed ID: 15729286
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Exploring the role of the research integrity officer. Commentary on 'Seven ways to plagiarize: handling real allegations of research misconduct'.
Geller LN
Sci Eng Ethics; 2002 Oct; 8(4):540-2. PubMed ID: 12501722
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
Korngreen A
Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7066):282. PubMed ID: 16292281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Authorship.
Watts C
Surg Neurol; 2009 Jul; 72(1):99. PubMed ID: 19559939
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Emergent areas to visualize by the journal strategy holders.
Babu A
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2013 Nov; 14(6):i-ii. PubMed ID: 24858778
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Promoting ethical conduct in the publication of research.
Freedman JE
Cardiovasc Ther; 2008; 26(2):89-90. PubMed ID: 18485131
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. [Investigation of scientific fraud. Statements from the Swedish Research Council not sufficiently normative].
Werkö L
Lakartidningen; 2006 Oct 25-31; 103(43):3288-91. PubMed ID: 17117661
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Peer review reviewed.
Nature; 2002 May; 417(6885):103. PubMed ID: 12000917
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Ghostwriting.
Cheson B
Clin Adv Hematol Oncol; 2008 May; 6(5):318. PubMed ID: 18637293
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. [Debate on peer review. Report from an international congress on peer review].
Grimby G
Lakartidningen; 2002 Jul; 99(30-31):3109-10. PubMed ID: 12198929
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
