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.
196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22179321)
41. [Sponsorship, authorship and accountability]. Davidoff F; DeAngelis CD; Drazen JM; Hoey J; Højgaard L; Horton R; Kotzin S; Nicholls MG; Nylenna M; Overbeke JP; Sox HC; van der Weyden MB; Wilkes MS; Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2001 Sep; 121(21):2531-2. PubMed ID: 11875934 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
42. [Standardization of reviews of scientific publications]. Ventura AG Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2009; 72(4):574-5; author reply 575. PubMed ID: 19839127 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
43. JECH: new editorial directions. Barreto ML; Garcia AM; Bobak M; Aquino R; Porta M J Epidemiol Community Health; 2009 Jan; 63(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 19088116 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
44. Singapore Statement: a global agreement on responsible research conduct. Kleinert S Lancet; 2010 Oct; 376(9747):1125-7. PubMed ID: 20864155 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
45. 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]
46. Peer review and the nursing literature. Dougherty MC Nurs Res; 2009; 58(2):73. PubMed ID: 19289927 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
47. 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]
48. Peer-review: a citadel under siege. Apuzzo ML Neurosurgery; 2008 Nov; 63(5):821. PubMed ID: 19005370 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. Editorial: thoughts on establishing research significance and preserving scientific integrity. Drotar D J Pediatr Psychol; 2008; 33(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 17977891 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. [How I review an original scientific paper]. Hoppin FG Rev Mal Respir; 2003 Nov; 20(5 Pt 1):671-8. PubMed ID: 14631245 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
51. Dealing with editorial misconduct: what about relationship with reviewers and authors? Laube RE BMJ; 2005 Feb; 330(7487):364. PubMed ID: 15705711 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. Eighth international congress on peer review in biomedical publication. Rennie D; Flanagin A; Godlee F; Bloom T BMJ; 2015 May; 350():h2411. PubMed ID: 26012586 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. Editorial policies and publication bias: the importance of negative studies. Sridharan L; Greenland P Arch Intern Med; 2009 Jun; 169(11):1022-3. PubMed ID: 19506169 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
57. Post-publication review. A tale of woe. Macbeth FR BMJ; 2010 Sep; 341():c5147. PubMed ID: 20861107 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
58. How to make your article more acceptable for the statistical reviewer. Herbison P Neurourol Urodyn; 2007; 26(3):318-22. PubMed ID: 17279559 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. [New trends in the management of common solid malignant tumors]. Klastersky J; Awada A Rev Med Brux; 2005; 26(5):425-32. PubMed ID: 16318095 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Responding to peer reviews: pointers that authors don't learn in school. Algase DL Res Theory Nurs Pract; 2008; 22(4):219-21. PubMed ID: 19093658 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]