203 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27830803)
1. Peer review: Revise rules on conflicts of interest.
Žliobaitė I; Fortelius M
Nature; 2016 Nov; 539(7628):168. PubMed ID: 27830803
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Who stands to lose from double-blind review?
Garvalov BK
Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322505
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Who would you share your funding with?
Bollen J
Nature; 2018 Aug; 560(7717):143. PubMed ID: 30089925
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Nature journals tighten rules on non-financial conflicts.
Nature; 2018 Feb; 554(7690):6. PubMed ID: 29388964
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. On peer review.
Schuklenk U
Bioethics; 2015 Feb; 29(2):ii-iii. PubMed ID: 25586285
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of revealing authors' conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial.
John LK; Loewenstein G; Marder A; Callaham ML
BMJ; 2019 Nov; 367():l5896. PubMed ID: 31694810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Ethical guidelines to publication of chemical research.
Editors of the Publications Division, Ameican Chemical Society
Biomacromolecules; 2001; 2(1):19A-21A. PubMed ID: 12442743
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
Korngreen A
Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7066):282. PubMed ID: 16292281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. EURYI: present procedure risks conflicts of interest.
Lente G
Nature; 2005 Sep; 437(7056):192. PubMed ID: 16148909
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The politics of publication.
Lawrence PA
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6929):259-61. PubMed ID: 12646895
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Investigator-initiated trials are more impartial.
Johnston BC; Vohra S
Nature; 2006 Sep; 443(7108):144. PubMed ID: 16971926
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The system rewards a dishonest approach.
Brookfield J
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774095
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Protecting our science.
Seixas NS
Ann Occup Hyg; 2013 Oct; 57(8):963-5. PubMed ID: 24130260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Scientific research and the human condition.
Perez Velazquez JL
Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6918):13. PubMed ID: 12511929
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. China cracks down on fake peer reviews.
Cyranoski D
Nature; 2017 Jun; 546(7659):464. PubMed ID: 28640278
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. A rebuttal: secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research.
McLaughlin JK; Boice JD; Tarone RE; Blot WJ
Am J Ind Med; 2007 Mar; 50(3):235-6. PubMed ID: 17187382
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Ten simple rules for reviewers.
Bourne PE; Korngreen A
PLoS Comput Biol; 2006 Sep; 2(9):e110. PubMed ID: 17009861
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Citation rate unrelated to journals' impact factors.
Waheed AA
Nature; 2003 Dec; 426(6966):495. PubMed ID: 14654813
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
