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.
149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17106961)
21. Who stands to lose from double-blind review? Garvalov BK Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322505 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Who would you share your funding with? Bollen J Nature; 2018 Aug; 560(7717):143. PubMed ID: 30089925 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. The system rewards a dishonest approach. Brookfield J Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774095 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. A simple system of checks and balances to cut fraud. Yang X; Eggan K; Seidel G; Jaenisch R; Melton D Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482128 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. What's next for Registered Reports? Chambers C Nature; 2019 Sep; 573(7773):187-189. PubMed ID: 31506624 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Peer review: Trial by Twitter. Mandavilli A Nature; 2011 Jan; 469(7330):286-7. PubMed ID: 21248816 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Swift publication would reward good reviewers. Koonin EV Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6930):374. PubMed ID: 12660754 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Reviewers peering from under a pile of 'omics' data. Nicholson JK Nature; 2006 Apr; 440(7087):992. PubMed ID: 16625173 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]