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.
22. Reviewers peering from under a pile of 'omics' data. Nicholson JK Nature; 2006 Apr; 440(7087):992. PubMed ID: 16625173 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Who owns what I say? Oral presentations, scientific publications, and 'the times'. Parrish R Arch Ophthalmol; 1994 Sep; 112(9):1157-8. PubMed ID: 8085959 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Swift publication would reward good reviewers. Koonin EV Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6930):374. PubMed ID: 12660754 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Researchers may be part of the problem in predatory publishing. Vogel L CMAJ; 2017 Oct; 189(42):E1324-E1325. PubMed ID: 29061862 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Meaningful peer review is integral to quality science and should provide benefits to the authors and reviewers alike. Carrell DT; Rajpert-De Meyts E Andrology; 2013 Jul; 1(4):531-2. PubMed ID: 23785017 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. The do's and don't's of submitting scientific papers. Walsh PJ; Mommsen TP; Nilsson GE Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol; 2009 Mar; 152(3):203-4. PubMed ID: 19146976 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Medical journals turn gaze inward to examine process of peer review. Stephenson J JAMA; 1997 Nov; 278(17):1389-91. PubMed ID: 9355982 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Experts plan to reclaim the web for pop science. Butler D Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7076):516-7. PubMed ID: 16452941 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Peer review: is it a social process? Quintana LM World Neurosurg; 2011; 76(1-2):41-2. PubMed ID: 21839939 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]