Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.

about

Appropriate roles for the subscriber, publisher, editor, author, and reviewer in the archives of plastic surgery The Editor's Role as a Harriet Shaw Weaver.Hypotheses, limits, models and life.Don't be a zero-sum reviewer

P2860

Q35055956-29C47F85-4A8D-437C-AA78-15C2488B76A3 Q38382274-22D127CB-6AAB-4848-A325-260E0B2DA351 Q39427776-187CC452-6B0E-4C65-989E-53982268B669 Q57199937-26573745-A0A6-47BE-9784-92AE4DB976AE

P2860

Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.

Item

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q38051132

description

article científic

@ca

article scientifique

@fr

articol științific

@ro

articolo scientifico

@it

artigo científico

@gl

artigo científico

@pt

artigo científico

@pt-br

artikel ilmiah

@id

artikull shkencor

@sq

artículo científico

@es

name

Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.

@en

type

Item

label

Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.

@en

prefLabel

Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.

@en

P1476

Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.

@en

P2093

Aaron Zolen Armendariz

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Ajeandro Romero

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Alberto W Mares

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Alejandro Kurosawa

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Alex Villasenor

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Alison Tomlinson

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Amhayes Tadesse

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Andrea Herrmann

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Andrew K Fletcher

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Angelika Losek

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P2860

A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus

Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research

Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports

Ideas in biomedical science: reasons for the foundataion of Medical Hypotheses

Einstein Versus the Physical Review

Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?

Sample size and precision in NIH peer review.

Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?

Comment on "A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus".

The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation

P2888

s11017-012-9233-1

P304

359-376

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P31

scholarly article

P356

10.1007/S11017-012-9233-1

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P433

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P478

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P50

Heiner Rindermann

Peter Celec

Jolanta M Siller-Matula

P577

2012-10-01T00:00:00Z

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime

P5875

232231017

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P6179

1019023477

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P698

23054375

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.

about

P2860

P2860

Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.

description

name

type

label

prefLabel

P1433

P1476

P2093

P2860

P2888

P304

P31

P356

P433

P478

P50

P577

P5875

P6179

P698

P356

P1433

P1476

P2093

P2860

P2888

P304

P31

P356

P433

P478

P50

P577

P5875

P6179

P698