122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31978355)
1. Publication records versus scientific progress.
The Lancet Neurology
Lancet Neurol; 2020 Feb; 19(2):101. PubMed ID: 31978355
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The Vision for Preparing the Next Generation of Reviewers for the Scholarly Scientific Publication Process.
Habal MB
J Craniofac Surg; 2016 Mar; 27(2):275-6. PubMed ID: 26963295
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The emerging landscape of scientific publishing.
Fiala C; Diamandis EP
Clin Biochem; 2017 Aug; 50(12):651-655. PubMed ID: 28434986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Iovs 2008-2012.
Kaufman PL
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2012 Dec; 53(13):8238-9. PubMed ID: 23230304
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Peer-Review Fraud--Hacking the Scientific Publication Process.
Haug CJ
N Engl J Med; 2015 Dec; 373(25):2393-5. PubMed ID: 26488392
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Predatory journals: The rise of worthless biomedical science.
Sharma H; Verma S
J Postgrad Med; 2018; 64(4):226-231. PubMed ID: 30306968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Role of the manuscript reviewer.
Peh WC; Ng KH
Singapore Med J; 2009 Oct; 50(10):931-3; quiz 934. PubMed ID: 19907880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Assessing the evolution of publications by Brazilian spine surgeons in the last decade.
Falavigna A; Botelho RV; Teles AR; da Silva PG; Defino HL
World Neurosurg; 2013 Nov; 80(5):e73. PubMed ID: 22728665
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Traditional publications: an endangered species?
Marcus A
Arthritis Rheum; 2008 Feb; 58(2 Suppl):S149-52. PubMed ID: 18240269
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Plan U: Universal access to scientific and medical research via funder preprint mandates.
Sever R; Eisen M; Inglis J
PLoS Biol; 2019 Jun; 17(6):e3000273. PubMed ID: 31163026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Ethical development.
Pourquié O; Brown K; Moulton C
Development; 2014 Sep; 141(18):3439-40. PubMed ID: 25183865
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Fast publication, a must for a journal.
Pozzilli P
Diabetes Metab Res Rev; 2018 Jan; 34(1):. PubMed ID: 29356302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Publication of negative research findings: pros and cons.
Jerrells TR
Alcohol; 2003 Nov; 31(3):123-4. PubMed ID: 14693260
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Playing the game of scientific publishing.
Fiala C; Diamandis EP
Clin Biochem; 2019 Nov; 73():118-120. PubMed ID: 31377346
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Dangers of over-dependence on peer-reviewed publication.
Nature; 1999 Oct; 401(6755):727. PubMed ID: 10548083
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Peer review in academic publishing: threats and challenges.
Misra DP; Ravindran V
J R Coll Physicians Edinb; 2019 Jun; 49(2):99-100. PubMed ID: 31188334
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Evolution or revolution? Changing the way science is published and communicated.
Baum B; Coen E
PLoS Biol; 2019 Jun; 17(6):e3000272. PubMed ID: 31163022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Scientific publishing-an evolving beast.
Chisti Y
Biotechnol Adv; 2003 Apr; 21(2):101-2. PubMed ID: 14499131
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Evolutionary trends in peer review.
Morey A; Garner A; Faruque F; Yang G
J Allied Health; 2011; 40(3):156-60. PubMed ID: 21927782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A new twist on peer review.
Patterson M; Schekman R
Elife; 2018 Jun; 7():. PubMed ID: 29944117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
