SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Medical journals and society: threats and responsibilities
14 references·0 citing·33 second hop
Medical journals and society: threats and responsibilities (1992)Medical journals and society: threats and…The future of medical journals (1992)The future of medical journalsA Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (1992)A Difficult Balance: Editoria…The Ingelfinger Rule Revisited (1991)The Ingelfinger Rule RevisitedImportance of the Lay Press in the Transmission of Medical Knowledge to the Scientific Community (1991)Importance of the Lay Press i…How blind is blind review? (1991)How blind is blind review?Early Release of Research Results (1991)Early Release of Research Res…The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial (1990)The effects of blinding on th…The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review (1990)The Effects of Blinding on th…New Information for Authors — And Readers (1990)New Information for Authors —…Ethics and policy in scientific publication (1990)Ethics and policy in scientif…How Good is Peer Review? (1989)How Good is Peer Review?Retraction of Research Findings (1987)Retraction of Research Findin…The Ingelfinger Rule (1981)The Ingelfinger RuleTime Lapse between Hypothesis and Publication in the Medical Sciences (1975)Time Lapse between Hypothesis…Lessons from the Darsee Affair (1983)An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1993)Impact factors of forensic science and toxicology journals: what do the numbers really mean? (2003)Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Prevention of Depressive Symptoms in University Students: a Meta-analytic Review (2019)Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula (1982)The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. (1990)Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review (1997)El sistema de revisión por expertos (peer review): muchos problemas y pocas soluciones (2002)Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study (2011)Peer review in biomedical publication (1974)Multiple publication of reports of drug trials (1989)Some problems in conceptualizing the issue of “science and the media” (1990)The Case for Open Preprints in Biology (2013)The Journal's Policy on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses (1994)Reviewing for Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (2012)Fear of the academic fake? Journal editorials and the amplification of the 'predatory publishing' discourse (2021)Policies, practices, and attitudes of north american medical journal editors (1995)The Internet and theJournal (1995)Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg? (2001)Science and the media (1998)Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing (2011)Misinformation in and about science (2021)The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation (1991)A COMPARISON OF THE INFORMATION SEEKING PATTERNS OF RESEARCHERS IN THE PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES (1993)Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? (2000)Assessing “Best Evidence”: Issues in Grading the Quality of Studies for Systematic Reviews (1999)Research methods: Managing primary study quality in meta‐analyses (2003)We Have to Break Up (2009)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? (1998)How Many Neurosurgeons Does It Take to Write a Research Article? Authorship Proliferation in Neurosurgical Research (2000)Responsible authorship and peer review (2002)Ethics in engineering practice and research (2012)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1991Importance of the Lay Press in the Transmission of Medical Knowledge to the Scientific Community395 cited
  • 1990The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review261 cited
  • 1990The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial216 cited
  • 1992A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine212 cited
  • 1991The Ingelfinger Rule Revisited120 cited
  • 1981The Ingelfinger Rule115 cited
  • 1990New Information for Authors — And Readers71 cited
  • 1991How blind is blind review?65 cited
  • 1990Ethics and policy in scientific publication61 cited
  • 1989How Good is Peer Review?59 cited
  • 1992The future of medical journals46 cited
  • 1975Time Lapse between Hypothesis and Publication in the Medical Sciences40 cited
  • 1987Retraction of Research Findings15 cited
  • 1991Early Release of Research Results7 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work