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.
29. Peer reviewers need more nurturing. Catlow R Nature; 2017 Dec; 552(7685):293. PubMed ID: 29293240 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Peer review could be improved by market forces. Jaffe K Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Impact factors aren't top journals' sole attraction. Törnqvist TE Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774096 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Challenging the tyranny of impact factors. Colquhoun D Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):479; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774093 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. NIH responds to critics on peer review. Wadman M Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Thoughtful peer review is worth the time it takes. Michalet X Nature; 2005 Jun; 435(7046):1160. PubMed ID: 15988495 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige. Okike K; Hug KT; Kocher MS; Leopold SS JAMA; 2016 Sep; 316(12):1315-6. PubMed ID: 27673310 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. China cracks down on fake peer reviews. Cyranoski D Nature; 2017 Jun; 546(7659):464. PubMed ID: 28640278 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Discourse among referees and editors would help. Lahiri DK Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482130 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Editors are meant to be judges, not postmen. Michell B Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):479-80; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774094 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]