Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 152

Similar articles for PubMed (Select 23087639)

1.

Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science.

Kriegeskorte N.

Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Oct 17;6:79. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00079. eCollection 2012.

2.

SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. Promoting an open research culture.

Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD, Breckler SJ, Buck S, Chambers CD, Chin G, Christensen G, Contestabile M, Dafoe A, Eich E, Freese J, Glennerster R, Goroff D, Green DP, Hesse B, Humphreys M, Ishiyama J, Karlan D, Kraut A, Lupia A, Mabry P, Madon TA, Malhotra N, Mayo-Wilson E, McNutt M, Miguel E, Paluck EL, Simonsohn U, Soderberg C, Spellman BA, Turitto J, VandenBos G, Vazire S, Wagenmakers EJ, Wilson R, Yarkoni T.

Science. 2015 Jun 26;348(6242):1422-5. doi: 10.1126/science.aab2374. No abstract available.

PMID:
26113702
3.

The five deadly sins of science publishing.

Tracz V.

F1000Res. 2015 May 11;4:112. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.6488.1. eCollection 2015.

4.

How do we improve peer review for manuscripts from culturally divergent origins?

Dart A.

F1000Res. 2015 Feb 10;4:39. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.5704.1. eCollection 2015.

5.

Entering new publication territory in chemoinformatics and chemical information science.

Bajorath J.

F1000Res. 2015 Feb 4;4:35. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.6101.1. eCollection 2015.

6.

Redrawing the frontiers in the age of post-publication review.

Galbraith DW.

Front Genet. 2015 Jun 5;6:198. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2015.00198. eCollection 2015.

7.

We have never been ELSI researchers - there is no need for a post-ELSI shift.

Myskja BK, Nydal R, Myhr AI.

Life Sci Soc Policy. 2014 Dec;10(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s40504-014-0009-4. Epub 2014 Apr 5.

PMID:
26085445
8.

Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.

Walker R, Rocha da Silva P.

Front Neurosci. 2015 May 27;9:169. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00169. eCollection 2015. Review.

9.

The missing metric: quantifying contributions of reviewers.

Cantor M, Gero S.

R Soc Open Sci. 2015 Feb 11;2(2):140540. doi: 10.1098/rsos.140540. eCollection 2015 Feb.

10.

The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

Ferreira C, Bastille-Rousseau G, Bennett AM, Ellington EH, Terwissen C, Austin C, Borlestean A, Boudreau MR, Chan K, Forsythe A, Hossie TJ, Landolt K, Longhi J, Otis JA, Peers MJ, Rae J, Seguin J, Watt C, Wehtje M, Murray DL.

Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2015 Apr 10. doi: 10.1111/brv.12185. [Epub ahead of print]

PMID:
25865035
11.

Response to "Cryolipolysis: The Importance of Scientific Evaluation of a New Technique".

Stevens WG.

Aesthet Surg J. 2015 Jul;35(5):NP120-2. doi: 10.1093/asj/sju109. Epub 2015 Apr 6. No abstract available.

PMID:
25846670
12.

Correction: Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data.

PLOS ONE Staff.

PLoS One. 2015 Apr 2;10(4):e0123377. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123377. eCollection 2015. No abstract available.

13.

Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.

Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD.

J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Apr;30(4):360-4. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360. Epub 2015 Mar 19. Review.

14.

Cryolipolysis: The Importance of Scientific Evaluation of a New Technique.

Swanson E.

Aesthet Surg J. 2015 Jul;35(5):NP116-9. doi: 10.1093/asj/sju069. Epub 2015 Mar 31. No abstract available.

PMID:
25829438
15.

Recognizing the importance of new tools and resources for research.

Schekman R, Weigel D, Watt FM.

Elife. 2015 Mar 31;4. doi: 10.7554/eLife.07083. No abstract available.

16.

Reviewers: the ultimate resource for scientific publishing.

Brunner PH, Cossu R.

Waste Manag. 2015 May;39:1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.02.026. Epub 2015 Mar 24. No abstract available.

PMID:
25817723
17.

Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview.

Ford E.

F1000Res. 2015 Jan 9;4:6. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.6005.1. eCollection 2015.

18.

Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data.

Kratz JE, Strasser C.

PLoS One. 2015 Feb 23;10(2):e0117619. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117619. eCollection 2015.

19.

Medical journal peer review: process and bias.

Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, Hirsch JA.

Pain Physician. 2015 Jan-Feb;18(1):E1-E14.

20.

Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences.

Bowman JD.

Am J Pharm Educ. 2014 Dec 15;78(10):176. doi: 10.5688/ajpe7810176.

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk