Literature DB >> 27207440

Does the Anonymous Voice Have a Place in Scholarly Publishing?

Jaime A Teixeira da Silva1, Michael R Blatt2.   

Abstract

Year:  2016        PMID: 27207440      PMCID: PMC4825157          DOI: 10.1104/pp.15.01939

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plant Physiol        ISSN: 0032-0889            Impact factor:   8.340


× No keyword cloud information.
  10 in total

1.  Science publishing: The trouble with retractions.

Authors:  Richard Van Noorden
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications.

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; R Grant Steen; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review.

Authors:  Jaime A Teixeira da Silva; Judit Dobránszki
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.622

4.  When Is Science 'Ultimately Unreliable'?

Authors:  Michael R Blatt
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 8.340

Review 5.  Vesicles versus Tubes: Is Endoplasmic Reticulum-Golgi Transport in Plants Fundamentally Different from Other Eukaryotes?

Authors:  David G Robinson; Federica Brandizzi; Chris Hawes; Akihiko Nakano
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 8.340

6.  Vigilante Science.

Authors:  Michael R Blatt
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 8.340

7.  Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli; Rodrigo Costas; Vincent Larivière
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-17       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The need for post-publication peer review in plant science publishing.

Authors:  Jaime A Teixeira da Silva
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 5.753

9.  Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications.

Authors:  Andrew M Stern; Arturo Casadevall; R Grant Steen; Ferric C Fang
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 10.  Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities.

Authors:  Roger Chun-Man Ho; Kwok-Kei Mak; Ren Tao; Yanxia Lu; Jeffrey R Day; Fang Pan
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 4.615

  10 in total
  6 in total

1.  Reflection on the Fazlul Sarkar versus PubPeer ("John Doe") Case.

Authors:  Jaime A Teixeira da Silva
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior.

Authors:  Jaime A Teixeira da Silva; Aceil Al-Khatib; Judit Dobránszki
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Are Pseudonyms Ethical in (Science) Publishing? Neuroskeptic as a Case Study.

Authors:  Jaime A Teixeira da Silva
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  New Faces behind the Scenes.

Authors:  Michael R Blatt
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 8.340

5.  It may be easier to publish than correct or retract faulty biomedical literature.

Authors:  Jaime A Teixeira da Silva
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 1.351

6.  Ae Fond Fareweel1.

Authors:  Mike Blatt
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2021-12-04       Impact factor: 8.340

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.