685 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20461569)
1. Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors.
Newton DP
Account Res; 2010 May; 17(3):130-45. PubMed ID: 20461569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The role of editors, reviewers and authors in improving the journal quality.
Bugiardini R
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown); 2011 Jan; 12(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 21263233
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. A vision for the European journal of clinical investigation: note from the new editors.
Ioannidis JP; Tatsioni A; Karassa FB
Eur J Clin Invest; 2010 Jan; 40(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 20055893
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.
Resnik DB; Elmore SA
Sci Eng Ethics; 2016 Feb; 22(1):169-88. PubMed ID: 25633924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The examination of peer review and publication in neurology.
Wong VS
J Child Neurol; 2010 Oct; 25(10):1298-301. PubMed ID: 20606060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
Kearney MH; Freda MC
Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Translation of the scientific method... Peer review.
Scarfe WC
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Apr; 109(4):485-7. PubMed ID: 20176497
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. [Investigation of scientific fraud. Statements from the Swedish Research Council not sufficiently normative].
Werkö L
Lakartidningen; 2006 Oct 25-31; 103(43):3288-91. PubMed ID: 17117661
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey.
Wager E; Fiack S; Graf C; Robinson A; Rowlands I
J Med Ethics; 2009 Jun; 35(6):348-53. PubMed ID: 19482976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Standards for ethical publication.
Johnson JT; Niparko JK; Levine PA; Kennedy DW; Rudy SF; Weber P; Weber RS; Benninger MS; Rosenfeld RM; Ruben RJ; Smith RJ; Sataloff RT; Weir N
Am J Otolaryngol; 2007; 28(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 17162121
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Fortifying the external peer review: an editorial perspective.
Sohail S
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2015 Jan; 25(1):2-3. PubMed ID: 25604359
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Characteristics of peer reviewed clinical medicine journals.
Eldredge J
Med Ref Serv Q; 1999; 18(2):13-26. PubMed ID: 10557841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Scientific reporting guidelines].
Nylenna M
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2009 Nov; 129(22):2340. PubMed ID: 19935931
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Promoting ethical conduct in the publication of research.
Freedman JE
Cardiovasc Ther; 2008; 26(2):89-90. PubMed ID: 18485131
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Journal editorial policies, animal welfare, and the 3Rs.
Osborne NJ; Payne D; Newman ML
Am J Bioeth; 2009 Dec; 9(12):55-9. PubMed ID: 20013503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.
Glonti K; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
BMJ Open; 2019 Nov; 9(11):e033421. PubMed ID: 31767597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry editorial policies and ethical guidelines.
Roth KA
J Histochem Cytochem; 2006 Feb; 54(2):129-30. PubMed ID: 16418501
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Consider the source.
Mason DJ
Am J Nurs; 2009 Apr; 109(4):7. PubMed ID: 19325281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
