248 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16482132)
41. Fraud: just say no!
Blaustein JD
Endocrinology; 2010 Jan; 151(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 20028876
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
42. What's next for Registered Reports?
Chambers C
Nature; 2019 Sep; 573(7773):187-189. PubMed ID: 31506624
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
43. Robust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility.
Begley CG; Buchan AM; Dirnagl U
Nature; 2015 Sep; 525(7567):25-7. PubMed ID: 26333454
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
44. Bad peer reviewers.
Nature; 2001 Sep; 413(6852):93. PubMed ID: 11557930
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
45. The new peer review.
Kohane IS; Altman RB
Proc AMIA Symp; 2000; ():433-7. PubMed ID: 11079920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Trust-but verify-scientific findings.
Rutkowski JL
J Oral Implantol; 2015 Feb; 41(1):1. PubMed ID: 25699641
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
47. 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]
48. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
van Loon AJ
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. Retractions' realities.
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6927):1. PubMed ID: 12621394
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. What has Science's open-access sting taught us about the quality of peer review?
Tatalović M
Bosn J Basic Med Sci; 2013 Nov; 13(4):209-11. PubMed ID: 24427852
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
51. 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]
52. An open letter to WJNR reviewers.
Brink PJ
West J Nurs Res; 2003 Apr; 25(3):247-50. PubMed ID: 12705110
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. Post-publication review could aid skills and quality.
Gibson TA
Nature; 2007 Jul; 448(7152):408. PubMed ID: 17653166
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. A reprogramming rush.
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7186):388. PubMed ID: 18368078
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
55. Publication of chemical research: do we need ethical standards?
Karlberg B
Anal Bioanal Chem; 2007 Jan; 387(1):129-30. PubMed ID: 17111106
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
56. Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.
Prager EM; Chambers KE; Plotkin JL; McArthur DL; Bandrowski AE; Bansal N; Martone ME; Bergstrom HC; Bespalov A; Graf C
Cancer Rep (Hoboken); 2019 Feb; 2(1):e1150. PubMed ID: 32721132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Peer reviewers need more nurturing.
Catlow R
Nature; 2017 Dec; 552(7685):293. PubMed ID: 29293240
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
58. 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]
59. 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]
60. Peer review: phony data, shoddy work or revolutionary results? "Truth will out".
Friedman JH
Med Health R I; 2000 Jul; 83(7):198. PubMed ID: 10934817
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
