94 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8107795)
1. 'Wrong' ideas.
Koliadin V
Nature; 1994 Feb; 367(6462):406. PubMed ID: 8107795
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Scientific literature and gospel truth.
Hayreh SS
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2000 Jun; 48(2):93-9. PubMed ID: 11116521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. On the falsification of ideas.
Lancet; 1992 Aug; 340(8815):344-5. PubMed ID: 1353811
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The real dirty secret of academic publishing.
Svetlov V
Nature; 2004 Oct; 431(7011):897. PubMed ID: 15496892
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Science in the web age: joint efforts.
Butler D
Nature; 2005 Dec; 438(7068):548-9. PubMed ID: 16319855
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Restoring good manners.
Wolff SP
Nature; 1995 Sep; 377(6546):192. PubMed ID: 7675103
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The dangers of advocacy in science.
Gitzen RA
Science; 2007 Aug; 317(5839):748. PubMed ID: 17690275
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Biodefense. Experts warn against censoring basic science.
Marshall E
Science; 2004 Dec; 306(5704):2022. PubMed ID: 15604377
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The peer-review process in medical publishing: a reviewer's perspective.
Sellke FW
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2003 Dec; 126(6):1683-5. PubMed ID: 14688671
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review.
Stehbens WE
Med Hypotheses; 1999 Jan; 52(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 10342668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Pitfalls and skewing on impact factor calculations--may we use them for evaluation of scientific quality?].
Gadoth N
Harefuah; 1999 May; 136(9):690-1. PubMed ID: 10955090
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. A book of ideas collected from Medical Hypotheses: Death can be cured by Roger Dobson.
Charlton BG
Med Hypotheses; 2008; 70(5):905-9. PubMed ID: 18280670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. More haste, less science?
Hawkins BA
Nature; 1999 Aug; 400(6744):498. PubMed ID: 10448846
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Paranoid about peer review?
Rumjanek FD
Nature; 1996 Dec; 384(6609):509. PubMed ID: 8955262
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Ousted creationist sues over website.
Brumfiel G
Nature; 2002 Dec; 420(6916):597. PubMed ID: 12478256
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Integrity of the peer review process.
Smith ER
Can J Cardiol; 2000 Jun; 16(6):814. PubMed ID: 10863172
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Philosophy of science. The coordinates of truth.
Nabel GJ
Science; 2009 Oct; 326(5949):53-4. PubMed ID: 19797647
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Scientific publishing. Data integrity report sends journals back to the drawing board.
Kaiser J
Science; 2009 Jul; 325(5939):381. PubMed ID: 19628832
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Confidential reports may improve peer review.
Cintas P
Nature; 2004 Mar; 428(6980):255. PubMed ID: 15029169
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Ensuring the quality of peer-review process.
Afifi M
Saudi Med J; 2006 Aug; 27(8):1253. PubMed ID: 16883466
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
