124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8726987)
21. Next steps in the Schön affair.
Kennedy D
Science; 2002 Oct; 298(5593):495. PubMed ID: 12386303
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. The fallacy of double-blinded peer review.
Liebeskind DS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Nov; 181(5):1422; author reply 1422-3. PubMed ID: 14573448
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. [Telecommunications, health and radiology: potential synergies for the new millennium].
Lagalla R
Radiol Med; 2001; 102(1-2):14-9. PubMed ID: 11677432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. [Authors are accountable, even for radiologic illustrations in their articles].
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Mar; 143(10):500-1. PubMed ID: 10321256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Ethical issues faced by nursing editors.
Freda MC; Kearney MH
West J Nurs Res; 2005 Jun; 27(4):487-99. PubMed ID: 15870245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. [Reporting of scientific misconduct in health care research].
Klasen EC; Overbeke AJ
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2002 Aug; 146(35):1622-4. PubMed ID: 12233155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Quality evaluation needs some better quality tools.
Döring TF
Nature; 2007 Feb; 445(7129):709. PubMed ID: 17301769
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Research and scholarship among R.T. educators.
Fauber TL; Legg JS
Radiol Technol; 2003; 74(5):376-84. PubMed ID: 12800567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Responsible dissemination of scholarly work.
Clark AJ
J Neurosci Nurs; 1993 Apr; 25(2):113-7. PubMed ID: 8478555
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation.
Moed HF
Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz); 2009; 57(1):13-8. PubMed ID: 19219533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey.
Wager E; Fiack S; Graf C; Robinson A; Rowlands I
J Med Ethics; 2009 Jun; 35(6):348-53. PubMed ID: 19482976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud?
Claxton LD
Mutat Res; 2005 Jan; 589(1):17-30. PubMed ID: 15652224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters.
Hoffmann R
Nat Genet; 2008 Sep; 40(9):1047-51. PubMed ID: 18728691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Debate on peer review. Report from an international congress on peer review].
Grimby G
Lakartidningen; 2002 Jul; 99(30-31):3109-10. PubMed ID: 12198929
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Ophthalmology and vision science research: Part 3: avoiding writer's block--understanding the ABCs of a good research paper.
McGhee CN; Gilhotra AK
J Cataract Refract Surg; 2005 Dec; 31(12):2413-9. PubMed ID: 16473239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The ethics of scientific research: an analysis of focus groups of scientists and institutional representatives.
Wenger NS; Korenman SG; Berk R; Berry S
J Investig Med; 1997 Aug; 45(6):371-80. PubMed ID: 9291693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Authorship: can you claim a byline?
Klein CJ; Moser-Veillon PB
J Am Diet Assoc; 1999 Jan; 99(1):77-9. PubMed ID: 9917736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. [An archivist in a laboratory].
Kulecka A
Kwart Hist Nauki Tech; 2000; 45(1):47-69. PubMed ID: 11625759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Manuscripts: to blind, or not to blind, that is the question.
Rogers LF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Dec; 179(6):1373. PubMed ID: 12438019
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
