476 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17597736)
61. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
Clarke SP
Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
62. World neurosurgery: creating the kaleidoscope for needs and opportunities.
Apuzzo ML
World Neurosurg; 2010 Apr; 73(4):229. PubMed ID: 20849759
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
63. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
J Neurosci; 2009 Feb; 29(5):1255-6. PubMed ID: 19193872
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
64. Peer review-Beyond the call of duty?
Griffiths P; Baveye PC
Int J Nurs Stud; 2011 Jan; 48(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 20096840
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
65. Pressure also leads to worthless publications.
de Carvalho LB
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482133
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
66. Editorial: an age of enlightenment or information overload?
Davis TR
J Hand Surg Br; 2004 Dec; 29(6):521-9. PubMed ID: 15542210
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
67. Remembering the past, an eye to the future.
Platt JA
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 20166404
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
68. Between the paper mills and the World Wide Web.
Haug C
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2015 Jan; 135(1):7-8. PubMed ID: 25589098
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
69. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
van Loon AJ
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
70. Submitting papers to several journals at once.
Izunobi JU
Nature; 2023 Nov; 623(7989):916. PubMed ID: 38017269
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
71. [Not Available].
Strauss A
Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol; 2016 Oct; 220(5):189-190. PubMed ID: 27764884
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
72. Change to Open Peer Commentary format.
Perlovsky L; Duermeijer C
Phys Life Rev; 2010 Mar; 7(1):1. PubMed ID: 20374915
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
73. Publishing: The journal that publishes no papers.
Ball P
Nature; 2015 Oct; 526(7571):146. PubMed ID: 26432251
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
74. Growth and transitions.
Turk DC
Clin J Pain; 2013 Jan; 29(1):1. PubMed ID: 23211601
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
75. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
Saper CB
Neurobiol Dis; 2009 Mar; 33(3):313-4. PubMed ID: 19218038
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
76. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
Naqvi KR
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322504
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
77. Does it take too long to publish research?
Powell K
Nature; 2016 Feb; 530(7589):148-51. PubMed ID: 26863966
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
78. Report of the editors--2015.
Biometrics; 2016 Mar; 72(1):7-9. PubMed ID: 27059160
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
79. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
Jaffe K
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
80. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
Saper CB
Exp Neurol; 2009 Mar; 216(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 19217967
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
