Reviewing should be shown in publication list.
作者信息
Clausen Torben, Nielsen Ole Baekgaard
出版信息
Nature. 2003 Feb 13;421(6924):689. doi: 10.1038/421689b.
DOI:10.1038/421689b
PMID:12610595
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Reviewing should be shown in publication list.
Nature. 2003 Feb 13;421(6924):689. doi: 10.1038/421689b.
2
Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
Nature. 2005 Nov 17;438(7066):282. doi: 10.1038/438282d.
3
Journals: redundant publications are bad news.
Nature. 2003 Jan 16;421(6920):209. doi: 10.1038/421209a.
4
A simple system of checks and balances to cut fraud.
Nature. 2006 Feb 16;439(7078):782. doi: 10.1038/439782b.
5
Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
Nature. 2008 Mar 6;452(7183):28. doi: 10.1038/452028b.
6
Citation rate unrelated to journals' impact factors.
Nature. 2003 Dec 4;426(6966):495. doi: 10.1038/426495c.
7
Impact factors aren't top journals' sole attraction.
Nature. 2003 May 29;423(6939):480. doi: 10.1038/423480b.
8
Challenging the tyranny of impact factors.
Nature. 2003 May 29;423(6939):479; discussion 480. doi: 10.1038/423479a.
9
Korean scandal will have global fallout.
Nature. 2005 Dec 22;438(7071):1056-7. doi: 10.1038/4381056a.
10
Editors are meant to be judges, not postmen.
Nature. 2003 May 29;423(6939):479-80; discussion 480. doi: 10.1038/423479b.
Zotero 插件