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.
168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33683024)
1. Peer Review Week 2020: Insights into Building Trust in Peer Review. Sayab M; Sarwar M; T Mathew S Pak J Biol Sci; 2020 Jan; 23(12):1496-1499. PubMed ID: 33683024 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Building trust in journals and in peer review: need of the hour during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ahmed S; Mohini Rheumatol Int; 2021 Feb; 41(2):501-502. PubMed ID: 33161448 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers? Teixeira da Silva JA; Al-Khatib A Sci Eng Ethics; 2018 Feb; 24(1):275-285. PubMed ID: 28155093 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. Helmer M; Schottdorf M; Neef A; Battaglia D Elife; 2017 Mar; 6():. PubMed ID: 28322725 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest. Teixeira da Silva JA; Dobránszki J; Bhar RH; Mehlman CT J Bioeth Inq; 2019 Jun; 16(2):279-298. PubMed ID: 31016681 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Teixeira da Silva JA; Dobránszki J Account Res; 2015; 22(1):22-40. PubMed ID: 25275622 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Scientific Authors in a Changing World of Scholarly Communication: What Does the Future Hold? Baffy G; Burns MM; Hoffmann B; Ramani S; Sabharwal S; Borus JF; Pories S; Quan SF; Ingelfinger JR Am J Med; 2020 Jan; 133(1):26-31. PubMed ID: 31419421 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Reference accuracy: authors', reviewers', editors', and publishers' contributions. Barroga EF J Korean Med Sci; 2014 Dec; 29(12):1587-9. PubMed ID: 25469055 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An Alert to COVID-19 Literature in Predatory Publishing Venues. Teixeira da Silva JA ; 2020 Sep; 46(5):102187. PubMed ID: 32589695 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Motivations for performing scholarly prepublication peer review: A scoping review. Mahmić-Kaknjo M; Utrobičić A; Marušić A Account Res; 2021 Jul; 28(5):297-329. PubMed ID: 32907396 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Peer review in a post-eprints world: a proposal. Till JE J Med Internet Res; 2000; 2(3):E14. PubMed ID: 11720937 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Scholarly communication: cultural contexts, evolving models. Harley D Science; 2013 Oct; 342(6154):80-2. PubMed ID: 24092736 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview. Ford E F1000Res; 2015; 4():6. PubMed ID: 25767695 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. eLife's new model and its impact on science communication. Urban L; De Niz M; Fernández-Chiappe F; Ebrahimi H; Han LKM; Mehta D; Mencia R; Mittal D; Ochola E; Paz Quezada C; Romani F; Sinapayen L; Tay A; Varma A; Yahia Mohamed Elkheir L Elife; 2022 Dec; 11():. PubMed ID: 36476569 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. How far do you trust your colleagues? Neufeld A New Sci; 1987 Jan; 113(1543):59. PubMed ID: 11655810 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. What is the Future of Preprint Peer Review? Sever R; Carvalho T Acta Med Port; 2023 Apr; 36(4):225-226. PubMed ID: 36881858 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]