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. Prevention of false positive findings in observational studies: registration will not work but replication might. de Jonge P; Conradi HJ; Thombs BD; Rosmalen JG; Burger H; Ormel J J Epidemiol Community Health; 2011 Feb; 65(2):95-6. PubMed ID: 21113013 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The matter of standards. III. The editorial process. Wilkins AS Bioessays; 2008 Nov; 30(11-12):1037-9. PubMed ID: 18937297 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. [Scientific reporting guidelines]. Nylenna M Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2009 Nov; 129(22):2340. PubMed ID: 19935931 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Medical journal cites misleading drug research. Grady D N Y Times Web; 1999 Nov; ():A18. PubMed ID: 11648133 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Science in flux: Registered reports and beyond at the European Journal of Neuroscience. Chambers CD; Forstmann B; Pruszynski JA Eur J Neurosci; 2019 Jan; 49(1):4-5. PubMed ID: 30584679 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Preface: Scientific Premise and Rigors in Scientific Research, Peer Review, Editing and Publishing. Zhang R Curr Cancer Drug Targets; 2017; 17(1):2. PubMed ID: 28067174 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The importance of no evidence. Nat Hum Behav; 2019 Mar; 3(3):197. PubMed ID: 30953022 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Peer review and appeal: flawed but trusted? Pravinkumar E Lancet; 2003 Aug; 362(9385):747. PubMed ID: 12957106 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Editorial Evaluation, Peer Review, and Publication of Research Reports With and Without Supplementary Online Content. Flanagin A; Christiansen SL; Borden C; Kyriacou DN; Sietmann C; Williams E; Bryant L JAMA; 2018 Jan; 319(4):410. PubMed ID: 29362785 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes. Fox MF J Higher Educ; 1994; 65(3):298-309. PubMed ID: 11653366 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. New guidelines for authors. Westhoff C; Bowen T Contraception; 2013 Jul; 88(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 23773526 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Bad papers by Caveman. J Cell Sci; 2005 Mar; 118(Pt 6):1103-4. PubMed ID: 15764593 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Editorial peer review in biomedical publishing: an overview. Napolitani Cheyne F Rom J Gastroenterol; 2004 Jun; 13(2):155-7. PubMed ID: 15229782 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Truth in Science Publishing: A Personal Perspective. Südhof TC PLoS Biol; 2016 Aug; 14(8):e1002547. PubMed ID: 27564858 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]