Literature DB >> 21525890

End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments.

Hidde Ploegh1.   

Abstract

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21525890     DOI: 10.1038/472391a

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


× No keyword cloud information.
  17 in total

1.  Our professional opinion.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nat Chem Biol       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 15.040

2.  Peer review: rigor? Or rigor mortis?

Authors:  Vytas A Bankaitis
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 8.807

3.  Waste not, want not.

Authors:  Howard A Rockman
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 14.808

4.  It Is Time to Re-Evaluate the Peer Review Process for Preclinical Research.

Authors:  Rajat Bhattacharya; Lee M Ellis
Journal:  Bioessays       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 4.345

5.  Reproducibility will only come with data liberation.

Authors:  Mohammed AlQuraishi; Peter K Sorger
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 17.956

6.  Q&A: Re-review opt-out and painless publishing.

Authors:  Miranda Robertson
Journal:  BMC Biol       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 7.431

7.  Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy.

Authors:  Jeffrey T Leek; Margaret A Taub; Fernando J Pineda
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Pit-bull reviewing, the pursuit of perfection and the victims of success.

Authors:  Miranda Robertson
Journal:  BMC Biol       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 7.431

9.  Minimizing the "re" in review.

Authors:  Elizabeth H Williams; Pamela A Carpentier; Tom Misteli
Journal:  J Cell Biol       Date:  2012-04-30       Impact factor: 10.539

10.  Opening peer-review: the democracy of science.

Authors:  Daniel R Shanahan; Bjorn R Olsen
Journal:  J Negat Results Biomed       Date:  2014-01-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.