129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7743970)
1. [Anonymous but irreplaceable experts in scientific journals].
Kontula K
Duodecim; 1993; 109(23-24):2181-3. PubMed ID: 7743970
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. [Evaluation of social relevance of applied health research: a rough indicator may be the significance of publishing in national professional journals].
Bouter LM; Knottnerus JA
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2000 Jun; 144(24):1178-83. PubMed ID: 10876699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Peer review: is one-eye king?].
de Jong BC; Overbeke AJ
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1993 Jan; 137(1):17-21. PubMed ID: 8419837
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Anonymous peer refereeing.
Nature; 1989 Jan; 337(6204):202. PubMed ID: 2911357
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record.
Hoppeler H; Handel M; Moulton OC
J Exp Biol; 2008 Dec; 211(Pt 23):3651. PubMed ID: 19011202
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. New committee to oversee relationship between CMA, CMAJ.
Sullivan P
CMAJ; 2003 Feb; 168(3):332. PubMed ID: 12566356
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Peer review unmasked.
Brunier G
J CANNT; 1997; 7(3):23-5. PubMed ID: 9362729
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Hwang case review committee misses the mark.
Rossner M
J Cell Biol; 2007 Jan; 176(2):131-2. PubMed ID: 17210952
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. [Bibliometric indicators of the quality of medical scientific research in The Netherlands and Flanders].
Moed HF; Van Ark GA; van den Berghe H
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1995 Jul; 139(29):1483-9. PubMed ID: 7630454
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Preserving blind peer review of electronic manuscript files.
Jacobson AF; Schmidt K; Coeling H
Nurse Author Ed; 2005; 15(1):1-4, 7. PubMed ID: 15739759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Maintaining ethical standards in medical publishing.
Youngs R; Kenyon G
J Laryngol Otol; 2006 Jan; 120(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 16375774
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. ["Virtual reality" in published sciences?].
Niethard FU
Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb; 1996; 134(6):481-2. PubMed ID: 9027115
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Addressing conflicts of interest and clouding of objectivity: BJSM's "peer review: fair review" section.
Khan KM; Stovitz SD; Pluim B; Cook JL; Bahr R; Arendt EA; Noakes TD
Br J Sports Med; 2008 Feb; 42(2):79. PubMed ID: 18256294
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The manuscript review process of nursing journals.
Swanson E; McCloskey JC
Image (IN); 1982 Oct; 14(3):72-6. PubMed ID: 6922826
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. Scientific standards observed by medical journals can still be improved.
Senn S
BMJ; 2002 Jan; 324(7330):169. PubMed ID: 11822335
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Where did the scientific method go?
Noseda M; McLean GR
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Jan; 26(1):28-9. PubMed ID: 18183010
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Response to Where did the scientific method go?
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Jan; 26(1):29. PubMed ID: 18183012
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Scientific publishing. Peer review and quality: a dubious connection?
Enserink M
Science; 2001 Sep; 293(5538):2187-8. PubMed ID: 11567115
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The review process in refereed journals.
Huntly DE
Kans Nurse; 1986 Apr; 61(4):7-8, 18. PubMed ID: 3634838
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Should journals police scientific fraud?
Marris E
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7076):520-1. PubMed ID: 16452946
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
