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.
242 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20442084)
41. Oscars® and Oz: plastic surgery illusions and deceptions. Freshwater MF J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg; 2014 Aug; 67(8):1167-70. PubMed ID: 24976247 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
42. Conflicts of interest and the truth of scientific discovery: an editor's perspective. Lüscher TF Eur Heart J; 2016 Mar; 37(9):738-40. PubMed ID: 26802131 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
43. No ghosts here please. Warlow C Pract Neurol; 2007 Apr; 7(2):72-3. PubMed ID: 17430870 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
45. Peer review processes at the Health Information and Libraries Journal. Grant MJ Health Info Libr J; 2018 Dec; 35(4):263-264. PubMed ID: 30499172 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Am I flogging a dead metaphor? Sloppy scholarship and the implied spider. McKenzie R J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs; 2005 Oct; 12(5):550-5. PubMed ID: 16164505 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
47. Revealing the faults in medical journals. Liesegang TJ Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz); 2009; 57(2):75-83. PubMed ID: 19333735 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Open access under scrutiny. Samkange-Zeeb F; Zeeb H J Radiol Prot; 2013 Dec; 33(4):885-6. PubMed ID: 24285443 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
51. Demystifying the Peer-Review Process for HERD. Stichler JF HERD; 2017 Apr; 10(3):7-11. PubMed ID: 28335631 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. The EHJ: the first years and the future. Lüscher TF Eur Heart J; 2014 Dec; 35(48):3399-407. PubMed ID: 25416327 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. Open review and the quest for increased transparency in neuroscience publication. Foxe JJ; Bolam P Eur J Neurosci; 2017 May; 45(9):1125-1126. PubMed ID: 28186675 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. What do journal editors want? … and everything you wanted to know about the peer review process for journal publication. Muir-Cochrane E Nurs Health Sci; 2013 Sep; 15(3):263-4. PubMed ID: 24021114 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
55. Implementation of a journal peer reviewer stratification system based on quality and reliability. Green SM; Callaham ML Ann Emerg Med; 2011 Feb; 57(2):149-152.e4. PubMed ID: 20947204 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. [Issues about on-line manuscript submission and evaluation]. Ağildere AM Tani Girisim Radyol; 2004 Sep; 10(3):175-7. PubMed ID: 15470616 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
57. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. Smith R PLoS Med; 2005 May; 2(5):e138. PubMed ID: 15916457 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. [A Nordic round-table conference on the medical journals: to keep the quality and reliability is the most important issue]. Ramel B Lakartidningen; 2004 Jun; 101(23):2023-5. PubMed ID: 15232841 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
59. Conflict of interest in peer-reviewed medical journals: the World Association of Medical Editors' position on a challenging problem. Ferris LE; Fletcher RH Acad Med; 2010 May; 85(5):739-41. PubMed ID: 20520012 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. Getting to yes: the fate of neuroradiology manuscripts rejected by radiology over a 2-year period. Khosla A; McDonald RJ; Bornmann L; Kallmes DF Radiology; 2011 Jul; 260(1):3-5. PubMed ID: 21697305 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]