논문상세정보
-
- 저자 Durga Prasanna Misra Vinod Ravindran Vikas Agarwal
- 제어번호 105941129
- 학술지명 Journal of Korean medical science
- 권호사항 Vol. 33 No. 46 [ 2018 ]
- 발행처 대한의학회
- 자료유형 학술저널
- 수록면 1-14
- 언어 English
- 출판년도 2018
- 등재정보 KCI등재
- 판매처
유사주제 논문( 0)
Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement
' Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement' 의 참고문헌
-
Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editorsGasparyan AY [2011]
-
What is research integrity?
-
What is peer review?
-
Trends in authorship characteristics in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, 1994 to 2014Schrock JB [2016]
-
The role and responsibilities of coauthorsThe Lancet [2008]
-
The malversations of authorship - current status in academic community and how to prevent itMasic I [2018]
-
Should peer review stop being anonymous?
-
Selling authors names to prestigious journals
-
Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impactGasparyan AY [2014]
-
Sarajevo declaration on integrity and visibility of scholarly publicationsMašić I [2016]
-
Reviewing post-publication peer reviewKnoepfler P [2015]
-
Reviewer author coauthorship
-
Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review modelsKowalczuk MK [2015]
-
Researcher and Author Profiles: Opportunities, Advantages, and LimitationsArmen Yuri Gasparyan [2017]
-
Research ethics: authorship and publicationJawad F [2013]
-
Representing contributions by CRediT
-
Publons
-
Publication ethics: its importance to readers, authors, and the professionPoster E [2012]
-
Preprint servers facilitate scientific discourseVerma IM [2017]
-
Portable peer review services
-
Perceptions of Chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct: a comparison between 2015 and 2010Liao QJ [2018]
-
Peer-review fraud--hacking the scientific publication processHaug CJ [2015]
-
Peer review fraud
-
Peer review
-
Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authorsCampos-Varela I [2018]
-
Major publisher retracts 43 papers, alleging fake peer reviewDyer O [2015]
-
Lancet withdraws research paper and warns authors about rules of “gift authorship”Dyer C [2008]
-
Lack of involvement of medical writers and the pharmaceutical industry in publications retracted for misconduct: a systematic, controlled, retrospective studyWoolley KL [2011]
-
Journal rankings in rheumatology
-
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
-
Institutional and professional email addresses
-
Inappropriate authorship and kinship in research evaluationRivera H [2018]
-
Identity theft in the academic world leads to junk scienceDadkhah M [2018]
-
Guest authors in an Iranian journalGhajarzadeh M [2014]
-
Fraudsters strike peer review: stolen passwords, fake reviews threaten biomedical literatureGreene J [2015]
-
Fake peer-review in research publication: revisiting research purpose and academic integrityHadi MA [2016]
-
Fake peer review - too good to be trueCheung BM [2017]
-
Editorial: why some authors make bad choices--peer review for hire and other sad storiesBeadling L [2015]
-
Editorial independence
-
Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)
-
Committee on Publication Ethics - core practices
-
Collaborations: the rise of research networksAdams J [2012]
-
Coauthor agreement
-
China's publication bazaarHvistendahl M [2013]
-
Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overviewQi X [2017]
-
Authorship problems in scholarly journals: considerations for authors, peer reviewers and editorsGasparyan AY [2013]
-
Authorship grids: practical tools to facilitate collaboration and ethical publicationPhillippi JC [2018]
-
Authorship and contribution disclosuresSauermann H [2017]
-
A method for improving the integrity of peer reviewDadkhah M [2017]
-
2017 ICMJE recommendations