158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17936163)
1. Of editors and dilemmas.
DeMaria AN
J Am Coll Cardiol; 2007 Oct; 50(16):1610-1. PubMed ID: 17936163
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. [The impact factor and editorial decisions].
Matías-Guiu J; García-Ramos R
Neurologia; 2008; 23(6):342-8. PubMed ID: 18597189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. What do the JAMA editors say when they discuss manuscripts that they are considering for publication? Developing a schema for classifying the content of editorial discussion.
Dickersin K; Ssemanda E; Mansell C; Rennie D
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2007 Sep; 7():44. PubMed ID: 17894854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Stem cells. ...and how the problems eluded peer reviewers and editors.
Couzin J
Science; 2006 Jan; 311(5757):23-4. PubMed ID: 16400115
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Ethics for editors.
Smith ER
Can J Cardiol; 2004 Feb; 20(2):239-40. PubMed ID: 15010750
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Editorial peer review in biomedical publishing: an overview.
Napolitani Cheyne F
Rom J Gastroenterol; 2004 Jun; 13(2):155-7. PubMed ID: 15229782
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation.
Falagas ME; Alexiou VG
Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz); 2008; 56(4):223-6. PubMed ID: 18661263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Editorial from the BOR Editors-in-Chief. The dreaded "d" word.
Eppig J; Handel MA
Biol Reprod; 2008 Mar; 78(3):566. PubMed ID: 18303037
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Publication ethics: editors' perspectives.
Christakis DA; Rivara FP
J Pediatr; 2006 Jul; 149(1 Suppl):S39-42. PubMed ID: 16829242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Peer review. Suggesting or excluding reviewers can help get your paper published.
Grimm D
Science; 2005 Sep; 309(5743):1974. PubMed ID: 16179438
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Decision making is an important aspect of health communication research.
Broome M; Farrell M; Visser A
Patient Educ Couns; 2010 Sep; 80(3):285-7. PubMed ID: 20691555
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Prepublication review of medical ethics research: cause for concern.
Landy DC; Coverdale JH; McCullough LB; Sharp RR
Acad Med; 2009 Apr; 84(4):495-7. PubMed ID: 19318788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An editor's checklist.
Guillery RW
Science; 2008 Aug; 321(5892):1039. PubMed ID: 18719263
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Suggesting reviewers affects outcome?
Wray KB
Science; 2005 Nov; 310(5750):971-2. PubMed ID: 16299870
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Suggesting reviewers affects outcome?
Ackerley DF
Science; 2005 Nov; 310(5750):971-2. PubMed ID: 16284161
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. An open letter to reviewers (or to anyone whose solicited recommendation has not been followed).
DeMaria AN
J Am Coll Cardiol; 2006 Jul; 48(2):409-10. PubMed ID: 16843195
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The matter of standards. III. The editorial process.
Wilkins AS
Bioessays; 2008 Nov; 30(11-12):1037-9. PubMed ID: 18937297
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Painful publishing.
Raff M; Johnson A; Walter P
Science; 2008 Jul; 321(5885):36. PubMed ID: 18599755
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Scientific publishing. PNAS nixes special privileges for (most) papers.
Kean S
Science; 2009 Sep; 325(5947):1486-7. PubMed ID: 19762615
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
