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.
2. National policy for science journals. Chaudhuri BR J Indian Med Assoc; 1977 Jan; 68(1):16-8. PubMed ID: 874329 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. [The publishing of advanced knowledge and medical science]. Paul R Duodecim; 1988; 104(16):1283-5. PubMed ID: 3168829 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Affirming science and peer-review publishing. Talley CR Am J Health Syst Pharm; 2009 May; 66(10):896. PubMed ID: 19420307 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Van Noorden R Nature; 2011 Oct; 478(7367):26-8. PubMed ID: 21979026 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Reinforcing access to research data. Nature; 1996 Jan; 379(6562):191. PubMed ID: 8538774 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Publish or perish: Panic publishing a danger to science during COVID-19. Shoib S; Das S; Ullah I; De Berardis D Aust N Z J Psychiatry; 2021 Jul; 55(7):733. PubMed ID: 33938267 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Science and the press. Bishop JE Science; 1992 Jan; 255(5040):10. PubMed ID: 1553521 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Impact factor as measure of scientific quality. Semenzato G; Rizzato G; Agostini C Am J Respir Crit Care Med; 2004 May; 169(9):1070; author reply 1070-1. PubMed ID: 15107304 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. [Does the impact factor the single suitable criteria to judge the quality of a scientific paper?]. Cynober L Ann Biol Clin (Paris); 2002; 60(3):255-9. PubMed ID: 12050039 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Keep libel laws out of science. Abbasi K J R Soc Med; 2010 Feb; 103(2):39. PubMed ID: 20118329 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The dangers of advocacy in science. Gitzen RA Science; 2007 Aug; 317(5839):748. PubMed ID: 17690275 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections. Fanelli D; Ioannidis JPA; Goodman S Eur J Clin Invest; 2018 Apr; 48(4):. PubMed ID: 29369337 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Programmers, professors, and parasites: credit and co-authorship in computer science. Solomon J Sci Eng Ethics; 2009 Dec; 15(4):467-89. PubMed ID: 19247811 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Mapping the complexities of science and politics. Hsieh YH Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7064):24. PubMed ID: 16267527 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Courage could win back confidence in science. Daenke S Nature; 1999 Sep; 401(6751):321. PubMed ID: 10517622 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Scientific publishing. Data integrity report sends journals back to the drawing board. Kaiser J Science; 2009 Jul; 325(5939):381. PubMed ID: 19628832 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Measuring the unmeasurable: assessing the quality of science and scientists. Lüscher TF Eur Heart J; 2018 May; 39(20):1765-1769. PubMed ID: 29788304 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]