183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25271271)
1. Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals.
Bartholomew RE
J R Soc Med; 2014 Oct; 107(10):384-5. PubMed ID: 25271271
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The rise of predatory journals: what difference does it make?
Nahai F
Aesthet Surg J; 2015 Nov; 35(8):1042-3. PubMed ID: 26038372
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Spoof research paper is accepted by 157 journals.
Hawkes N
BMJ; 2013 Oct; 347():f5975. PubMed ID: 24096966
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Predatory journals: The rise of worthless biomedical science.
Sharma H; Verma S
J Postgrad Med; 2018; 64(4):226-231. PubMed ID: 30306968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Problems and challenges of predatory journals.
Richtig G; Berger M; Lange-Asschenfeldt B; Aberer W; Richtig E
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol; 2018 Sep; 32(9):1441-1449. PubMed ID: 29729106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Beautification and fraud.
Nat Cell Biol; 2006 Feb; 8(2):101-2. PubMed ID: 16450003
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Killing the messenger: should scientific journals be responsible for policing scientific fraud?
Marusić A; Marusić M
Med J Aust; 2006 Jun; 184(12):596-7. PubMed ID: 16803433
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Journals under pressure: publish, and be damned.
Adam D; Knight J
Nature; 2002 Oct; 419(6909):772-6. PubMed ID: 12397323
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Research misconduct policies of social science journals and impact factor.
Resnik DB; Patrone D; Peddada S
Account Res; 2010 Mar; 17(2):79-84. PubMed ID: 20306350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Avoiding currently unavoidable conflicts of interest in medical publishing by transparent peer review.
Gleicher N
Reprod Biomed Online; 2013 May; 26(5):411-5. PubMed ID: 23507135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Peer review and scientific misconduct: bad authors and trusting reviewers.
Malay DS
J Foot Ankle Surg; 2009; 48(3):283-4. PubMed ID: 19423027
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.
Bosch X; Hernández C; Pericas JM; Doti P; Marušić A
PLoS One; 2012; 7(12):e51928. PubMed ID: 23284820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Beware of the predatory science journal: A potential threat to the integrity of medical research.
Johal J; Ward R; Gielecki J; Walocha J; Natsis K; Tubbs RS; Loukas M
Clin Anat; 2017 Sep; 30(6):767-773. PubMed ID: 28509358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Restoring integrity to the scientific literature: lowering the bar to raise our standards.
Gordon SE
J Gen Physiol; 2014 Dec; 144(6):495-7. PubMed ID: 25422501
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Research misconduct policies of high impact biomedical journals.
Redman BK; Merz JF
Account Res; 2006; 13(3):247-58. PubMed ID: 17124760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Publication ethics--responsibility of all].
Staff A; Rørtveit G
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2010 Feb; 130(3):259. PubMed ID: 20160762
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?
Steen RG
J Med Ethics; 2011 Feb; 37(2):113-7. PubMed ID: 21081306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor.
Resnik DB; Wager E; Kissling GE
J Med Libr Assoc; 2015 Jul; 103(3):136-9. PubMed ID: 26213505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Hwang case review committee misses the mark.
Rossner M
J Cell Biol; 2007 Jan; 176(2):131-2. PubMed ID: 17210952
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Research Integrity at Risk: Predatory Journals Are a Growing Threat.
Angadi PV; Kaur H
Arch Iran Med; 2020 Feb; 23(2):113-116. PubMed ID: 32061074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
