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.
69. Science, the icon, versus science, the method. Quis custodes ipsos custodet? (juvenal/satires). Weinstein S Int J Neurosci; 1990 Dec; 55(2-4):61-70. PubMed ID: 2084051 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
70. Science that Inspires. Cell Press Team Cell Rep; 2020 Jan; 30(4):947-948. PubMed ID: 31995764 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
71. Spotting the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Predatory Open Access Publications. Carroll CW J Grad Med Educ; 2016 Dec; 8(5):662-664. PubMed ID: 28018528 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
77. For a paradigm shift in peer review, bold steps need to be taken. Teixeira da Silva JA Radiol Med; 2023 Jul; 128(7):886-887. PubMed ID: 37285066 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
78. E-biomed: improving access or a threat to peer review? Walsh JH Gastroenterology; 1999 Aug; 117(2):293-4. PubMed ID: 10465630 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
79. Open access is worth considering: a reply to Agrawal. Lanfear R; Pennell MW Trends Plant Sci; 2014 Jun; 19(6):340-1. PubMed ID: 24794132 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
80. Open access--reasons to be cheerful: a reply to Agrawal. Curry S Trends Plant Sci; 2014 Apr; 19(4):196-7. PubMed ID: 24630846 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]