878 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16421533)
1. 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]
2. Three cheers for peers.
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7073):118. PubMed ID: 16407911
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Journals under pressure: publish, and be damned.
Adam D; Knight J
Nature; 2002 Oct; 419(6909):772-6. PubMed ID: 12397323
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. The politics of publication.
Lawrence PA
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6929):259-61. PubMed ID: 12646895
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Journals: impact factors are too highly valued.
Davies J
Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):210. PubMed ID: 12529611
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Learning to review.
Freedman R
J Clin Psychiatry; 2009 Nov; 70(11):1599-600. PubMed ID: 20031100
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Journals should set a new standard in transparency.
Dellavalle RP; Lundahl K; Freeman SR; Schilling LM
Nature; 2007 Jan; 445(7126):364. PubMed ID: 17251958
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. A look inside the Pharos review process.
Harris ED
Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc; 2003; 66(2):36-7. PubMed ID: 12838637
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Peer review and refereeing in science.
Lore W
East Afr Med J; 1995 May; 72(5):335-7. PubMed ID: 7555893
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The garbage collectors: could a particular sector of author-pays journals become silently acknowledged collectors of scientific waste?
Moore A
Bioessays; 2009 Aug; 31(8):821. PubMed ID: 19609967
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Structure and format of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts.
Manske PR
J Hand Surg Am; 2006 Sep; 31(7):1051-5. PubMed ID: 16945702
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. How to avoid the reviewer's axe: one editor's view.
Senturia SD
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2004 Jan; 51(1):127-30. PubMed ID: 14995024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Prospect of human cloning poses dilemma for journals.
Pearson H
Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):199. PubMed ID: 12529602
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. CONSORT and beyond.
Blackstone EH
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2006 Aug; 132(2):229-32. PubMed ID: 16872939
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Editors are meant to be judges, not postmen.
Michell B
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):479-80; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774094
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Peer-reviewed publication: a view from inside.
Fisher RS; Powers LE
Epilepsia; 2004 Aug; 45(8):889-94. PubMed ID: 15270753
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Scientific publishing. Peer review and quality: a dubious connection?
Enserink M
Science; 2001 Sep; 293(5538):2187-8. PubMed ID: 11567115
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
