311 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16989541)
1. Geriatrics editorial policy on disclosures.
Sherman FT; Radak JT
Geriatrics; 2006 Sep; 61(9):6. PubMed ID: 16989541
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Full disclosure matters!
Shafer SL
Anesth Analg; 2008 Mar; 106(3):1017. PubMed ID: 18292458
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Survey of conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of ophthalmology journals.
Anraku A; Jin YP; Trope GE; Buys YM
Ophthalmology; 2009 Jun; 116(6):1093-6. PubMed ID: 19376583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
Kennedy MS
Am J Nurs; 2009 Dec; 109(12):7. PubMed ID: 19935148
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. A statement on ethics from the HEART group.
HEART Group
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2008 May; 71(6):859-61. PubMed ID: 18412086
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. [Authorship and co-authorship].
Haug C
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2006 Feb; 126(4):429. PubMed ID: 16477275
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Ghost writers, vested interest and funding disclosures.
MacLennan A; Sturdee D; Fenton A; Panay N
Climacteric; 2010 Aug; 13(4):301-2. PubMed ID: 20540590
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Scientific discourse, corporate ghostwriting, journal policy, and public trust.
Tierney WM; Gerrity MS
J Gen Intern Med; 2005 Jun; 20(6):550-1. PubMed ID: 15987334
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Editorial: thoughts on establishing research significance and preserving scientific integrity.
Drotar D
J Pediatr Psychol; 2008; 33(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 17977891
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. A letter of rejection.
Flowers KR
J Hand Ther; 2006; 19(4):383. PubMed ID: 17056397
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. In the spirit of full disclosure.
Irwin RS
Chest; 2006 Jun; 129(6):1395. PubMed ID: 16778249
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. [Big and small research fraud].
Nylenna M
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2006 Aug; 126(16):2089. PubMed ID: 16932774
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. [Authors should know who reviewed their articles].
Sonnsjö B
Lakartidningen; 2005 Aug 22-28; 102(34):2333. PubMed ID: 16167638
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. [Authors should know who reviewed their articles].
Johansson BH
Lakartidningen; 2005 Jul 11-24; 102(28-29):2094; author reply 2094. PubMed ID: 16097188
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. [Lessons learned from the coxibs' ups and downs. The journals must be tougher against referees and authors].
Milerad J
Lakartidningen; 2008 May 21-27; 105(21):1560-1. PubMed ID: 18574991
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. The manuscript review process.
Triadafilopoulos G
Gastrointest Endosc; 2006 Dec; 64(6 Suppl):S23-5. PubMed ID: 17113850
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Working double-blind.
Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7179):605-6. PubMed ID: 18256621
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. [Advice for authors. Four principal reasons for manuscript rejection].
Clarke SP
Perspect Infirm; 2006; 3(3):35-9. PubMed ID: 16480058
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
