Literature DB >> 17183274

Peer review and fraud.

.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2006        PMID： 17183274     DOI： 10.1038/444971b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nature        ISSN： 0028-0836            Impact factor:   49.962


× No keyword cloud information.
  5 in total

1.  Transparency showcases strength of peer review.

Authors:  Bernd Pulverer
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial.

Authors:  E Cobo; J Cortés; J M Ribera; F Cardellach; A Selva-O'Callaghan; B Kostov; L García; L Cirugeda; D G Altman; J A González; J A Sànchez; F Miras; A Urrutia; V Fonollosa; C Rey-Joly; M Vilardell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-11-22

3.  Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness.

Authors:  Gunther Eysenbach
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2008-08-25       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 4.  Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.

Authors:  Richard Walker; Pascal Rocha da Silva
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 4.677

5.  Open access: taking full advantage of the content.

Authors:  Philip E Bourne; J Lynn Fink; Mark Gerstein
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2008-03-28       Impact factor: 4.475
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.