113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30131542)
1. Referees should exercise their rights.
Nature; 2018 Aug; 560(7719):409. PubMed ID: 30131542
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Rule rewrite aims to clean up scientific software.
Check Hayden E
Nature; 2015 Apr; 520(7547):276-7. PubMed ID: 25877185
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Peer review in action: the contribution of referees to advancing reliable knowledge.
Hanks G
Palliat Med; 2005 Jul; 19(5):359-70. PubMed ID: 16111059
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Blinded by the light: Anonymization should be used in peer review to prevent bias, not protect referees.
Shaw DM
EMBO Rep; 2015 Aug; 16(8):894-7. PubMed ID: 26174615
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Publish peer reviews.
Polka JK; Kiley R; Konforti B; Stern B; Vale RD
Nature; 2018 Aug; 560(7720):545-547. PubMed ID: 30158621
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Peer reviews: in praise of referees.
Altschuler EL
Nature; 2011 May; 473(7348):452. PubMed ID: 21614062
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Discourse among referees and editors would help.
Lahiri DK
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482130
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Peer review: should we modify our process?
Berquist TH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Mar; 202(3):463-4. PubMed ID: 24555581
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process.
Giles J
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):252. PubMed ID: 16421533
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Research council failed to clearly communicate its open access policy, say peers.
Mayor S
BMJ; 2013 Feb; 346():f1277. PubMed ID: 23444418
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Fund ideas, not pedigree, to find fresh insight.
Sinkjær T
Nature; 2018 Mar; 555(7695):143. PubMed ID: 29517033
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The peer review process (aka peer reviewology).
Yucha CB
Biol Res Nurs; 2002 Oct; 4(2):71-2. PubMed ID: 12408212
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. To publish or perish: how to review a manuscript.
Winck JC; Fonseca JA; Azevedo LF; Wedzicha JA
Rev Port Pneumol; 2011; 17(2):96-103. PubMed ID: 21477574
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study.
Couzin-Frankel J
Science; 2013 Sep; 341(6152):1331. PubMed ID: 24052283
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Rich nations are feeding research predators.
Vogel L
CMAJ; 2017 Oct; 189(42):E1322-E1323. PubMed ID: 29061861
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Some reflections on peer review.
Elwood TW
J Allied Health; 2014; 43(1):1. PubMed ID: 24598893
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Journals: how to decide what's worth publishing.
Jefferson T; Shashok K
Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):209-10. PubMed ID: 12529609
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
Earnshaw JJ; Farndon JR; Guillou PJ; Johnson CD; Murie JA; Murray GD
Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2000 Apr; 82(4 Suppl):133-5. PubMed ID: 10889776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. It's difficult to publish contradictory findings.
DeCoursey TE
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482132
[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]
