171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9864487)
1. [Misunderstanding of disciplinary decisions].
Crul BV
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1998 Oct; 142(40):2215. PubMed ID: 9864487
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. [Misunderstanding of disciplinary decisions].
Gebhardt DO
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1998 Oct; 142(40):2215-6. PubMed ID: 9864488
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. [Misunderstanding of disciplinary decisions].
Knol A
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1998 Oct; 142(40):2216. PubMed ID: 9864489
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. EMBO backs single electronic repository. European Molecular Biology Organization.
Butler D
Nature; 1999 Jul; 400(6740):97. PubMed ID: 10408426
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Restoring good manners in research.
Maddox J
Nature; 1995 Jul; 376(6536):113. PubMed ID: 7603555
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. [New editorial advice from the Journal of Gerontology and Geriatrics].
Diesfeldt HF
Tijdschr Gerontol Geriatr; 2006 Sep; 37(4):132-3. PubMed ID: 17025008
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Peer review and the fate of manuscripts.
Frey JJ
Fam Med; 1985; 17(1):3. PubMed ID: 3843084
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Tips for writing and publishing an article.
Nahata MC
Ann Pharmacother; 2008 Feb; 42(2):273-7. PubMed ID: 18212252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. How does peer review work?
Aaron L
Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. [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]
11. Are academic institutions corrupt?
Raw M
Lancet; 1993 Sep; 342(8873):746. PubMed ID: 8103854
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Journals: impact factors are too highly valued.
Davies J
Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):210. PubMed ID: 12529611
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. [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]
14. Peering into the review process.
Nat Struct Biol; 2000 Dec; 7(12):1075-6. PubMed ID: 11101879
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The discourteous reviewer.
Leviton A
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 2007 Jan; 21(1):2-4. PubMed ID: 17239173
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Perfecting peer review?
Nat Med; 2011 Jan; 17(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 21217648
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. [Harefuah peer review].
Shemer Y; Shoenfeld Y
Harefuah; 2001 May; 140(5):403-5. PubMed ID: 11419062
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Veterinary pathology and peer review.
Cantor GH; Caswell JL; Crissman JW; Gillette DM; Gunson DE; Hogenesch H; Kiupel M; Mense MG; Miller MA; Rush LJ; Leger JA; Schoeb TR; Sellers RS; Sills RC; Swayne DE; Thomas HC; Ward JM; Alden CL
Vet Pathol; 2009 Mar; 46(2):173-5. PubMed ID: 19261628
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. [Peer review for the "Revista de Investigación Clínica].
Loría A; Lisker R
Rev Invest Clin; 1994; 46(3):175-6. PubMed ID: 7973139
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Journalistic rights, and wrongs.
Mason DJ
Am J Nurs; 1999 Sep; 99(9):7. PubMed ID: 10489568
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
