182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27200447)
1. Peer review: Close inspection.
Schiermeier Q
Nature; 2016 May; 533(7602):279-81. PubMed ID: 27200447
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Peer reviewers need more nurturing.
Catlow R
Nature; 2017 Dec; 552(7685):293. PubMed ID: 29293240
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Training peer reviewers.
Mackey DA
Nature; 2006 Oct; 443(7113):880. PubMed ID: 17106961
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Gender bias goes away when grant reviewers focus on the science.
Guglielmi G
Nature; 2018 Feb; 554(7690):14-15. PubMed ID: 29388971
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Impact factors reward and promote excellence.
Lomnicki A
Nature; 2003 Jul; 424(6948):487. PubMed ID: 12891329
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Discourse among referees and editors would help.
Lahiri DK
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482130
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. What's next for Registered Reports?
Chambers C
Nature; 2019 Sep; 573(7773):187-189. PubMed ID: 31506624
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The joy of discovery.
de Duve C
Nature; 2010 Oct; 467(7317):S5. PubMed ID: 20944620
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Peer reviews: in praise of referees.
Altschuler EL
Nature; 2011 May; 473(7348):452. PubMed ID: 21614062
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
Naqvi KR
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322504
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Three cheers for peers.
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7073):118. PubMed ID: 16407911
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. A simple system of checks and balances to cut fraud.
Yang X; Eggan K; Seidel G; Jaenisch R; Melton D
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482128
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
van Loon AJ
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The politics of publication.
Lawrence PA
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6929):259-61. PubMed ID: 12646895
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. It's difficult to publish contradictory findings.
DeCoursey TE
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482132
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Post-publication review could aid skills and quality.
Gibson TA
Nature; 2007 Jul; 448(7152):408. PubMed ID: 17653166
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Rookie review.
Gewin V
Nature; 2011 Oct; 478(7368):275-7. PubMed ID: 21998887
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Standards for papers on cloning.
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):243. PubMed ID: 16421524
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Scandals stem from the low priority of peer review.
Connerade JP
Nature; 2004 Jan; 427(6971):196. PubMed ID: 14724609
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Reviewers' reports should in turn be peer reviewed.
List A
Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7098):26. PubMed ID: 16823432
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
