259 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25039807)
1. Use of double-blind peer review to increase author diversity.
Darling ES
Conserv Biol; 2015 Feb; 29(1):297-9. PubMed ID: 25039807
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.
Budden AE; Tregenza T; Aarssen LW; Koricheva J; Leimu R; Lortie CJ
Trends Ecol Evol; 2008 Jan; 23(1):4-6. PubMed ID: 17963996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Working double-blind.
Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7179):605-6. PubMed ID: 18256621
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Does double-blind review benefit female authors?
Webb TJ; O'Hara B; Freckleton RP
Trends Ecol Evol; 2008 Jul; 23(7):351-3; author reply 353-4. PubMed ID: 18450323
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Where is the honor in honorary authorship?
Kressel HY; Dixon AK
Radiology; 2011 May; 259(2):324-7. PubMed ID: 21386052
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Double-blind peer review: a crucial process.
Lima AF
J Adhes Dent; 2010 Dec; 12(6):423. PubMed ID: 21246062
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Footnotes, acknowledgments, and authorship: toward greater responsibility, accountability, and transparency.
Liesegang TJ; Bartley GB
Am J Ophthalmol; 2014 Dec; 158(6):1103-4. PubMed ID: 25457700
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. [Authorship and co-authorship].
Haug C
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2006 Feb; 126(4):429. PubMed ID: 16477275
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Prevalence of honorary coauthorship in the American Journal of Roentgenology.
Bonekamp S; Halappa VG; Corona-Villalobos CP; Mensa M; Eng J; Lewin JS; Kamel IR
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Jun; 198(6):1247-55. PubMed ID: 22623536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Meaningful peer review is integral to quality science and should provide benefits to the authors and reviewers alike.
Carrell DT; Rajpert-De Meyts E
Andrology; 2013 Jul; 1(4):531-2. PubMed ID: 23785017
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer.
Clark RK
Br Dent J; 2012 Aug; 213(4):153-4. PubMed ID: 22918342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Do it right the first time: advice for cornea authors.
Sugar A; Sugar J; Schwab I; Perry H; de Luise V; Soong HK; Weiss J
Cornea; 2014 Sep; 33(9):879. PubMed ID: 25062337
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Responsibilities of the editor.
Punjabi PP
Perfusion; 2010 May; 25(3):113-4. PubMed ID: 20581024
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
Kennedy MS
Am J Nurs; 2009 Dec; 109(12):7. PubMed ID: 19935148
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability.
Davidoff F; DeAngelis CD; Drazen JM; Nicholls MG; Hoey J; Højgaard L; Horton R; Kotzin S; Nylenna M; Overbeke AJ; Sox HC; Van Der Weyden MB; Wilkes MS
N Engl J Med; 2001 Sep; 345(11):825-6; discussion 826-7. PubMed ID: 11556304
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Author misconduct--a continuing saga.
Neal JM
Reg Anesth Pain Med; 2004; 29(2):90-1. PubMed ID: 15029541
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Appealing to editors?
Sperschneider T; Kleinert S; Horton R
Lancet; 2003 Jun; 361(9373):1926. PubMed ID: 12801734
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Researchers, authors and reviewers: what are our responsibilities?
Kramer MS
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 2012 Jul; 26(4):308-9. PubMed ID: 22686381
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Editors and authors: two halves of a whole.
Borus JF
Acad Psychiatry; 2014 Apr; 38(2):224-5. PubMed ID: 24477900
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.
Jagsi R; Bennett KE; Griffith KA; DeCastro R; Grace C; Holliday E; Zietman AL
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Aug; 89(5):940-946. PubMed ID: 25035195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
