147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28371034)
1. Rewarding reviewers, tracking our authors and selective electronic publication.
Harris JP
ANZ J Surg; 2017 Apr; 87(4):217-218. PubMed ID: 28371034
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Upon Further Review: Peer Process Vital to Publishing.
Katz A
Oncol Nurs Forum; 2016 Nov; 43(6):675-676. PubMed ID: 27768133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Predatory publishing: What editors need to know.
INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative
CANNT J; 2015; 25(1):8-10. PubMed ID: 26882636
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Coached Peer Review: Developing the Next Generation of Authors.
Sidalak D; Purdy E; Luckett-Gatopoulos S; Murray H; Thoma B; Chan TM
Acad Med; 2017 Feb; 92(2):201-204. PubMed ID: 27191842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. All the sourcing not fit to print: citing electronic material in your article.
Rice J
Chest; 2008 Jun; 133(6):1524-1526. PubMed ID: 18574300
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access.
Beall J
Nature; 2012 Sep; 489(7415):179. PubMed ID: 22972258
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Electronic preprints: what should the BMJ do?
Delamothe T
BMJ; 1998 Mar; 316(7134):794-5. PubMed ID: 9565456
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Rumors of the Demise of Peer Review are Premature.
Kravitz RL; Feldman MD
J Gen Intern Med; 2015 Dec; 30(12):1717-21. PubMed ID: 26407592
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The system rewards a dishonest approach.
Brookfield J
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774095
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. On ghost authorship and reviews: the 6th International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication.
Baethge C
Dtsch Arztebl Int; 2009 Nov; 106(45):731-2. PubMed ID: 19997585
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Responding to reviewers: Advice to young (and some older) authors.
Elston DM
J Am Acad Dermatol; 2019 Apr; 80(4):901. PubMed ID: 29128455
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Editorial.
Weisse T
Eur J Protistol; 2015 Apr; 51(2):A1-2. PubMed ID: 26008765
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Expanding Group Peer Review: A Proposal for Medical Education Scholarship.
Dumenco L; Engle DL; Goodell K; Nagler A; Ovitsh RK; Whicker SA
Acad Med; 2017 Feb; 92(2):147-149. PubMed ID: 27680319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. QUAD system offers fair shares to all authors.
Verhagen JV; Wallace KJ; Collins SC; Scott TR
Nature; 2003 Dec; 426(6967):602. PubMed ID: 14668833
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Addressing Authorship Issues Prospectively: A Heuristic Approach.
Roberts LW
Acad Med; 2017 Feb; 92(2):143-146. PubMed ID: 27355782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. How to avoid the reviewer's axe: one editor's view.
Senturia SD
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2004 Jan; 51(1):127-30. PubMed ID: 14995024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Entire-paper plagiarism caught by software.
Butler D
Nature; 2008 Oct; 455(7214):715. PubMed ID: 18843325
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The politics of publication.
Lawrence PA
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6929):259-61. PubMed ID: 12646895
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation.
Wagner AK; Boninger ML; Levy C; Chan L; Gater D; Kirby RL
Am J Phys Med Rehabil; 2003 Oct; 82(10):790-802. PubMed ID: 14508411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review.
Van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
J Gen Intern Med; 1999 Oct; 14(10):622-4. PubMed ID: 10571708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
