Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review.
about
Negative results: negative perceptions limit their potential for increasing reproducibilityFAIRness in scientific publishingPeer review and the publication processHijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics, and predatory publishing: actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics.Fairness in scientific publishing.Beware of the Predatory Science Journal: A Potential Threat to the Integrity of Medical Research.Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda.The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review.Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior.What's Not Being Discussed, or Considered, in Science Publishing?It may be easier to publish than correct or retract faulty biomedical literatureBeyond the Impact Factor - What do alternative metrics have to offer?Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?Multiple Authorship in Scientific Manuscripts: Ethical Challenges, Ghost and Guest/Gift Authorship, and the Cultural/Disciplinary Perspective.The ethics of peer and editorial requests for self-citation of their work and journal.Establishing Sensible and Practical Guidelines for Desk Rejections.Notices and Policies for Retractions, Expressions of Concern, Errata and Corrigenda: Their Importance, Content, and Context.
P2860
Q27015041-1113B306-0008-40F2-9664-99D38E36E4E0Q27975943-0BB87460-71D3-4379-8E5B-B39B466AE207Q28076160-33533FA8-E4A5-4C93-B858-D54FCD0C2AB0Q30489499-9A77C260-A9A2-438B-A057-A847BF458AFDQ30490840-1DCF9916-283D-4CD7-B378-159C6F143E9FQ30491696-3FFC303A-56F4-41F9-8BC4-F746CBD4D700Q38765450-3F13DC6E-B6B2-444C-A37B-B1924F162678Q38845385-B516A461-6556-4E08-BE90-871AEA7EEA43Q38982634-207F0839-53CA-4E5A-8ACB-CF8FE3DACB8DQ39026700-B158A7DF-29DF-4D71-A2CC-9309145BAC73Q41976912-FF9230F8-FD48-46E7-92D7-7DE88D638179Q42316949-06D3CE0B-0523-43B6-9618-36BAC2E2A80EQ42344752-3EFF8B52-A8B9-46DF-BB9C-4CA320EE24BEQ47988000-A8B0459A-074F-44BD-82FD-3B796198859AQ48926154-4FC287CE-AF22-42A6-B184-8FF8F1141478Q50033681-C3522315-07BA-4FFC-BC84-49CBDDB7EC0AQ50511426-AFEEE011-1679-46BD-B3C1-6AC2E012C904Q53789364-99DC1AB7-B31A-4566-9DFC-34472BA2AD8E
P2860
Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review.
description
2015 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2015 թուականի Յունուարին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2015 թվականի հունվարին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2015年の論文
@ja
2015年論文
@yue
2015年論文
@zh-hant
2015年論文
@zh-hk
2015年論文
@zh-mo
2015年論文
@zh-tw
2015年论文
@wuu
name
Problems with traditional scie ...... post-publication peer review.
@ast
Problems with traditional scie ...... post-publication peer review.
@en
type
label
Problems with traditional scie ...... post-publication peer review.
@ast
Problems with traditional scie ...... post-publication peer review.
@en
prefLabel
Problems with traditional scie ...... post-publication peer review.
@ast
Problems with traditional scie ...... post-publication peer review.
@en
P2860
P1476
Problems with traditional scie ...... post-publication peer review.
@en
P2093
Jaime A Teixeira da Silva
P2860
P356
10.1080/08989621.2014.899909
P577
2015-01-01T00:00:00Z