181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31527134)
1. Ninth international congress on peer review and scientific publication: call for research.
Ioannidis JPA; Berkwits M; Flanagin A; Godlee F; Bloom T
BMJ; 2019 Sep; 366():l5475. PubMed ID: 31527134
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Peer Review in Scientific Scholarship.
Lowe NK
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs; 2017; 46(6):799-800. PubMed ID: 29028479
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Publication pressure and scientific misconduct: why we need more open governance.
Gandevia S
Spinal Cord; 2018 Sep; 56(9):821-822. PubMed ID: 30194444
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. A shift in scholarly publishing practices and the growing menace of predatory journals.
Munk P; Coupal TM; Peh WC
Med J Aust; 2018 Aug; 209(4):149-150. PubMed ID: 30107766
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Peer review: A critical step in the editorial process.
Agrawal R
Indian J Pathol Microbiol; 2020; 63(3):347-349. PubMed ID: 32769320
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Statement of Concern.
Ward TN
Headache; 2017 May; 57(5):697-698. PubMed ID: 28444945
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Redundancy in the Headache Literature. What Constitutes Unethical Practice.
Roberts J; Ward TN; Taylor FR
Headache; 2017 May; 57(5):693-696. PubMed ID: 28444943
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Open review and the quest for increased transparency in neuroscience publication.
Foxe JJ; Bolam P
Eur J Neurosci; 2017 May; 45(9):1125-1126. PubMed ID: 28186675
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Critical Review Ahead of Publication.
Dubowitz V
Neuromuscul Disord; 2019 Jun; 29(6):412. PubMed ID: 31227065
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The Ninth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication: A Call for Research.
Ioannidis JPA; Berkwits M; Flanagin A; Godlee F; Bloom T
JAMA; 2019 Nov; 322(17):1658-1660. PubMed ID: 31524942
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Cutting the cake! Publication ethics in science.
Svensson P; Andersson L
J Oral Rehabil; 2013 Jul; 40(7):483. PubMed ID: 23521045
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer.
Faggion CM
Br Dent J; 2016 Feb; 220(4):167-8. PubMed ID: 26917302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Editorial: premature publishing and over-fragmentation.
Tarzia G
ChemMedChem; 2013 Jan; 8(1):6-7. PubMed ID: 23281336
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Guarding the guardians: research on editorial peer review. Selected proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. May 10-12, 1989, Chicago, Ill.
JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1317-1441. PubMed ID: 2304208
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Peer review: does it work?
Nahai F
Aesthet Surg J; 2010 Jan; 30(1):110-1. PubMed ID: 20442084
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. From Outcome to Process Focus: Fostering a More Robust Psychological Science Through Registered Reports and Results-Blind Reviewing.
Grand JA; Rogelberg SG; Banks GC; Landis RS; Tonidandel S
Perspect Psychol Sci; 2018 Jul; 13(4):448-456. PubMed ID: 29961411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Ghost management: how much of the medical literature is shaped behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical industry?
Sismondo S
PLoS Med; 2007 Sep; 4(9):e286. PubMed ID: 17896859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Publishing: The peer-review scam.
Ferguson C; Marcus A; Oransky I
Nature; 2014 Nov; 515(7528):480-2. PubMed ID: 25428481
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Sisyphus desperately seeking publisher.
Molinie A; Bodenhausen G
J Biosci; 2018 Mar; 43(1):9-14. PubMed ID: 29485111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Quality in peer review.
Commun Biol; 2019; 2():352. PubMed ID: 31552304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
