158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18322505)
1. Who stands to lose from double-blind review?
Garvalov BK
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322505
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Peer review: Revise rules on conflicts of interest.
Žliobaitė I; Fortelius M
Nature; 2016 Nov; 539(7628):168. PubMed ID: 27830803
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Double-blind review: let diversity reign.
O'Hara B
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322502
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Double-blind review: easy to guess in specialist fields.
Lane D
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322503
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
Korngreen A
Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7066):282. PubMed ID: 16292281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The system rewards a dishonest approach.
Brookfield J
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774095
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Reviewers' reports should in turn be peer reviewed.
List A
Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7098):26. PubMed ID: 16823432
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Citation rate unrelated to journals' impact factors.
Waheed AA
Nature; 2003 Dec; 426(6966):495. PubMed ID: 14654813
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. What's next for Registered Reports?
Chambers C
Nature; 2019 Sep; 573(7773):187-189. PubMed ID: 31506624
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Who would you share your funding with?
Bollen J
Nature; 2018 Aug; 560(7717):143. PubMed ID: 30089925
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Ratings games.
Nature; 2005 Aug; 436(7053):889-90. PubMed ID: 16107794
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Index aims for fair ranking of scientists.
Ball P
Nature; 2005 Aug; 436(7053):900. PubMed ID: 16107806
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Journals: redundant publications are bad news.
Mojon-Azzi SM; Jiang X; Wagner U; Mojon DS
Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):209. PubMed ID: 12529610
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Reviewing should be shown in publication list.
Clausen T; Nielsen OB
Nature; 2003 Feb; 421(6924):689. PubMed ID: 12610595
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
van Loon AJ
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Ethical guidelines to publication of chemical research.
Editors of the Publications Division, Ameican Chemical Society
Biomacromolecules; 2001; 2(1):19A-21A. PubMed ID: 12442743
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. No researcher is too junior to fix science.
Tregoning J
Nature; 2017 May; 545(7652):7. PubMed ID: 28470218
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Korean scandal will have global fallout.
Check E; Cyranoski D
Nature; 2005 Dec; 438(7071):1056-7. PubMed ID: 16371963
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
