These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
63 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1652690)
1. Lesson for science. Krowitz EJ Nature; 1991 Aug; 352(6338):751. PubMed ID: 1652690 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Federal actions against plagiarism in research. Price AR J Infor Ethics; 1996; 5(1):34-51. PubMed ID: 11653389 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Praise, for a change. Kennedy D Science; 2004 May; 304(5674):1077. PubMed ID: 15155914 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Current ethical issues in research. Horowitz HS J Am Coll Dent; 1990; 57(3):9-12. PubMed ID: 2174932 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Research integrity. Thomas A Nature; 1995 Jan; 373(6509):10. PubMed ID: 7800026 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Importance of peer-reviewed science in the debates on public policy. Scanes CG Poult Sci; 2009 Jan; 88(1):1. PubMed ID: 19096049 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Commentary on Cicchetti's "reliability of peer review". Colliver JA Teach Learn Med; 2002; 14(3):142-3. PubMed ID: 12189632 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Walters and Richards comment on the examination of terminal digits of questioned data as used by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the Public Health Service in misconduct cases. Mosimann JE IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag; 2002; 21(6):8-9; author reply 9-11. PubMed ID: 12613205 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Policing fraud and deceit: the legal aspects of misconduct in scientific inquiry. Protti M J Infor Ethics; 1996; 5(1):59-71. PubMed ID: 11653390 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. How do peer reviewers of journal articles perform? Evaluating the reviewers with a sham paper. Kumar PD J Assoc Physicians India; 1999 Feb; 47(2):198-200. PubMed ID: 10999090 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Peer review--still the well-functioning quality control and enhancer in scientific research. Isohanni M Acta Psychiatr Scand; 2005 Sep; 112(3):165-6. PubMed ID: 16095469 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The federal research misconduct regulations as viewed from the research universities. Wright DE Centen Rev; 1994; 38(2):249-72. PubMed ID: 11656759 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Proposals for improving the Peer Review System of the National Institutes of Health. Kirschstein RL Clin Res; 1977 Dec; 25(5):295-6. PubMed ID: 10304717 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Epidemiological research, interest groups, and the review process. Soskolne CL J Public Health Policy; 1985 Jun; 6(2):173-84. PubMed ID: 4031054 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. "Outing" peer review: medical editors scrutinize the value of secrecy. Vanchieri C J Natl Cancer Inst; 1997 Nov; 89(21):1568-9. PubMed ID: 9362150 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]