316 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7838231)
21. Trends in scientific publishing: Dark clouds loom large.
Vinny PW; Vishnu VY; Lal V
J Neurol Sci; 2016 Apr; 363():119-20. PubMed ID: 27000235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Scientific misconduct.
Sundaram M; Rosenthal DI; Hodler J
Skeletal Radiol; 2007 Mar; 36(3):179. PubMed ID: 17205322
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Peers under pressure.
Dalton R
Nature; 2001 Sep; 413(6852):102-4. PubMed ID: 11557944
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Journals should set a new standard in transparency.
Dellavalle RP; Lundahl K; Freeman SR; Schilling LM
Nature; 2007 Jan; 445(7126):364. PubMed ID: 17251958
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Bad peer reviewers.
Nature; 2001 Sep; 413(6852):93. PubMed ID: 11557930
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Who referees the referees?
Isbister WH
Aust N Z J Surg; 1992 Mar; 62(3):173-4. PubMed ID: 1550501
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. [Misconduct in medical-scientific publishing].
Overbeke AJ
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1994 Sep; 138(36):1822-6. PubMed ID: 7935910
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. The
Wang YF; Handelsman D; Cooper TG
Asian J Androl; 2017; 19(5):511. PubMed ID: 28782736
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Journal policy on ethics in scientific publication.
Callaham ML
Ann Emerg Med; 2003 Jan; 41(1):82-9. PubMed ID: 12514687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Quality filters in medical publications.
Balasubramanian S; Bhaskar PA
J Indian Med Assoc; 1984 Nov; 82(11):420-1. PubMed ID: 6399064
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. [Lakartidningen's scrutiny routines--equal to the heavies. The peer review system and the expert editorial staff guarantee scientific quality].
Milerad J; Ahlberg J; Bågedahl-Strindlund M; Eliasson M; Fridén B; Håkansson A; Sundberg CJ; Ostergren J
Lakartidningen; 2003 Nov; 100(48):3934-6. PubMed ID: 14717088
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. [When the editor makes an error].
Hem E
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2008 Oct; 128(20):2303. PubMed ID: 19096482
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Predatory publishers.
Odom-Forren J
J Perianesth Nurs; 2015 Apr; 30(2):87. PubMed ID: 25813294
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. [Quality assurance in publications].
Rothmund M
Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 1992 Nov; 117(48):1854-8. PubMed ID: 1451652
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. More questions about research misconduct.
Kennedy D
Science; 2002 Jul; 297(5578):13. PubMed ID: 12098673
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Publish or perish. The debate from a global perspective.
Jones R
Aust Fam Physician; 1999 May; 28(5):425-6. PubMed ID: 10376362
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. [Our peer-review practice and strategies to improve journal scientific performance].
Kudaiberdieva G
Anadolu Kardiyol Derg; 2010 Oct; 10(5):389-90. PubMed ID: 20929692
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Penalties plus high-quality review to fight plagiarism.
Wittmaack K
Nature; 2005 Jul; 436(7047):24. PubMed ID: 16001039
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Peer review and scientific misconduct: bad authors and trusting reviewers.
Malay DS
J Foot Ankle Surg; 2009; 48(3):283-4. PubMed ID: 19423027
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Journals: redundant publications are bad news.
Mojon-Azzi SM; Jiang X; Wagner U; Mojon DS
Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):209. PubMed ID: 12529610
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
