451 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30506706)
1. Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.
Prager EM; Chambers KE; Plotkin JL; McArthur DL; Bandrowski AE; Bansal N; Martone ME; Bergstrom HC; Bespalov A; Graf C
J Neurosci Res; 2019 Apr; 97(4):377-390. PubMed ID: 30506706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.
Prager EM; Chambers KE; Plotkin JL; McArthur DL; Bandrowski AE; Bansal N; Martone ME; Bergstrom HC; Bespalov A; Graf C
Brain Behav; 2019 Jan; 9(1):e01141. PubMed ID: 30506879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.
Prager EM; Chambers KE; Plotkin JL; McArthur DL; Bandrowski AE; Bansal N; Martone ME; Bergstrom HC; Bespalov A; Graf C
Cancer Rep (Hoboken); 2019 Feb; 2(1):e1150. PubMed ID: 32721132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Establishing Institutional Scores With the Rigor and Transparency Index: Large-scale Analysis of Scientific Reporting Quality.
Menke J; Eckmann P; Ozyurt IB; Roelandse M; Anderson N; Grethe J; Gamst A; Bandrowski A
J Med Internet Res; 2022 Jun; 24(6):e37324. PubMed ID: 35759334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Do oncology researchers adhere to reproducible and transparent principles? A cross-sectional survey of published oncology literature.
Walters C; Harter ZJ; Wayant C; Vo N; Warren M; Chronister J; Tritz D; Vassar M
BMJ Open; 2019 Dec; 9(12):e033962. PubMed ID: 31892667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Recommendations to enhance rigor and reproducibility in biomedical research.
Brito JJ; Li J; Moore JH; Greene CS; Nogoy NA; Garmire LX; Mangul S
Gigascience; 2020 Jun; 9(6):. PubMed ID: 32479592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network.
Simera I; Moher D; Hirst A; Hoey J; Schulz KF; Altman DG
BMC Med; 2010 Apr; 8():24. PubMed ID: 20420659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research.
Moher D; Simera I; Schulz KF; Hoey J; Altman DG
BMC Med; 2008 Jun; 6():13. PubMed ID: 18558004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Reporting guidelines for health research: protocol for a cross-sectional analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library.
Catalá-López F; Alonso-Arroyo A; Page MJ; Hutton B; Ridao M; Tabarés-Seisdedos R; Aleixandre-Benavent R; Moher D
BMJ Open; 2019 Mar; 9(3):e022769. PubMed ID: 30837245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Survey on Scientific Shared Resource Rigor and Reproducibility.
Knudtson KL; Carnahan RH; Hegstad-Davies RL; Fisher NC; Hicks B; Lopez PA; Meyn SM; Mische SM; Weis-Garcia F; White LD; Sol-Church K
J Biomol Tech; 2019 Sep; 30(3):36-44. PubMed ID: 31452645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research.
McIntosh LD; Juehne A; Vitale CRH; Liu X; Alcoser R; Lukas JC; Evanoff B
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Sep; 17(1):143. PubMed ID: 28923006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].
Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7():S225-46. PubMed ID: 19034813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Academic nightmares: Predatory publishing.
Van Nuland SE; Rogers KA
Anat Sci Educ; 2017 Jul; 10(4):392-394. PubMed ID: 27911990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Tools to enhance the quality and transparency of health research reports: reporting guidelines].
Galvão TF; Silva MT; Garcia LP
Epidemiol Serv Saude; 2016; 25(2):427-436. PubMed ID: 27869961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process.
Vercellini P; Buggio L; Viganò P; Somigliana E
Eur J Intern Med; 2016 Jun; 31():15-9. PubMed ID: 27129625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The journey to transparency, reproducibility, and replicability.
Bakken S
J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2019 Mar; 26(3):185-187. PubMed ID: 30689885
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review.
Haffar S; Bazerbachi F; Murad MH
Mayo Clin Proc; 2019 Apr; 94(4):670-676. PubMed ID: 30797567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Reviewing scientific manuscripts: how much statistical knowledge should a reviewer really know?
Morton JP
Adv Physiol Educ; 2009 Mar; 33(1):7-9. PubMed ID: 19261753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
